2008-06-20, 18:54 | Link #501 | |
Kuu-chan is hungry
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
Quote:
The case here is that the doctor refuses his service to one group but readily agrees to perform the same service to another. I'm curious to what standards this doctor has for heterosexual couples though. |
|
2008-06-21, 12:41 | Link #502 | |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
Quote:
The origin of the discrimination may stem from religious reasoning, but the origin or reasoning is not relevant to the case of discrimination itself.
__________________
|
|
2008-06-21, 12:55 | Link #503 | ||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
The reason why I have a problem applying the hypothetical situation here is because the first step is possibly correctable. That is, I will not perform a transaction because I feel that it will have overall harmful to the person receiving it as they are not ready, but they can do something to make themselves ready. In the news case, the problem is homosexuality. I don't believe there is anything that can or should be done to "remedy" this "problem" (note: I'm not accusing you of calling it a problem). To go further with the analogy, if the doctor really felt that homosexuals can't properly raise a child, then that's his belief and he's entitled to it. Part of the issue is that he was willing to guide them to the same end effect... but he just wasn't willing to do it himself. If the doctor is uncomfortable with the idea of doing it himself, then of course he shouldn't be forced to. At this point we need to admit that the reason is purely bias, whether it has its roots in religion or not. Homosexuals are physically no different than any other person. Why should their sexual preference matter to the doctor? Again, if the doctor truly felt that it would be harmful for a child to be brought into the world to be raised by a homosexual couple, then he should have said that he would not do it and he shouldn't have helped them any further. It's still biased, but if it's within his job description to be able to choose who to perform IVF for based on their qualifications as a parent then technically you could say that he was acting out of professional interest. Quote:
I do not know what rules and powers are granted to doctors who perform IVF. I have no problem with the idea of doctors being able to reject performing the procedure, but if doctors on a large scale are rejecting homosexuals alone then something needs to be done. Guidelines should be added which clearly remind the doctor that homosexuals can form stable family units and raise perfectly fine children (unless proven otherwise), and that their selectivity should not factor in homosexuality, regardless of their religious beliefs. Society does not condone those beliefs anymore, and Anh Minh is right in asking why it should matter whether it's a religious belief or not - it shouldn't. I'd like to rephrase a question that I sort of put forth in a few of the posts on this topic. To anyone who believes that the doctor was acting out of his moral conscience and did no wrong, why? I've stated my reasoning before: if he refused to perform the procedure because he really felt that a child to this homosexual couple would suffer, why would he be so willing to direct them to another doctor who would perform the procedure? It makes no sense to me. What if the couple were not homosexual, but were clearly unfit to be parents. Would it make any sense to reject the procedure for them out of concern for the child, but then recommend another doctor who would probably perform the procedure anyway? I fail to see how that is following one's morals. Quote:
It can lead to problems as with this case. You can't ask either side to change who they are, but you can ask the religious person to change their activity. At that point you're imposing on the religious person. The ideal scenario would be negotiation; that is, to request that the religious person (or better yet, high religious officials) recognize that their beliefs are causing them to discriminate and to adust in order to overcome that discrimination. It's still imposing, of course, and it's somewhat ideal because it's unlikely to happen. Quote:
The way that I understood it was that this doctor has performed IVF before. He did not have a moral issue with performing IVF, he had an issue with performing IVF for homosexuals. The way that you seem to be interpreting it is that he does not want to perform IVF, period. If that's the case then it isn't discriminatory and unless it's an expected function for his position (which depends on what type of doctor he is) then he has every right to refuse. If it's the case that I've read it as, then this goes beyond "hurt feelings." It's discrimination. It's the idea that people don't want to touch, associate, or perform services for you because of who or what you are. It goes against the idea that we are all equals and that we are all entitled to the same treatment and rights as everyone around us.
__________________
|
||||
2008-06-21, 14:13 | Link #504 | |||||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
After they do the exact same things I advised them to not do, I still have the same moral obligation to continue to support them. I refuse to aid them in doing the things I warn them against, but once they've done them they know they can come back and ask for help--even with the baggage they've picked up, which sometimes does include children. The only time that's not true is when my continued support would be "enablement"--but if they'd do it with or without my help, my support will always be available to them. Regardless of what they've done that I object to, I am no less required to help them--and any one else they bring into the world--make the best of things. They are still human beings worthy of all the love and help I can give them. I imagine the doctor might see it the same way. Quote:
But homosexuals are about the only "group of sinners" who present themselves as a demographic, so that has social effects. Quote:
I make sure they know all the reasons to not have sex as a young, unmarried person, and also that they know that should they decide otherwise they shouldn't expect my help to go fornicate... but they also know that if they're going to go do fornicate, then they had dad gum better use protection while they're doing it. On the off chance that some one told me they were planning to and wanted protection, there's no way I'd drive him to the drugstore to buy it, but I'd make sure he knew, or could find, the details about what to choose and how to use it effectively. Likewise, while this doctor may have objected to the point where he declined to perform the procedure, if he had the reasonable expectation that they could and would go somewhere else to do it, he had an obligation to make sure they knew where to find the best care--a situation I'm sure applies to more than just homosexuality. Quote:
Quote:
What about single people? Single people are another demographic often denied service by some IVF practices and occasionally referred to others. Do you see this discrimination differently? |
|||||
2008-06-21, 22:22 | Link #505 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
It never occurred to me he could refuse to practice IVF in general. (If so, why the hell would that couple come to him?)
I thought like Kyuusai - whom I unfortunately can't pos-rep - that he just thought homosexual couples shouldn't raise children. While don't agree with that belief, I see his actions as consistent with it, provided he's also against abortion. Maybe even without it. His recommending another doctor isn't hypocritical. It's a compromise with the facts that: - it's possible his belief is wrong; - society as a whole believes differently and has no law against homosexuals getting kids. And once it's in her belly, well, what is he to do? Push the would-be mother down a flight of stairs? |
2008-06-22, 01:13 | Link #506 | |||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Admittedly I still don't see how refusing to perform the service himself, but making a recommendation for another person to perform the procedure clears him. I guess we'll have to settle this one with analogies.
Quote:
The doctor's recommendation to see another doctor who would be willing to perform the procedure is far from that, in my mind. To go back to your example, kyuusai, it would be like having a young adult come to you and say that they want to have sex. To make this work more fully, let's say that your pupil is a female, and she would like to make it easy and have sex with you, but she's willing to go to someone else for it. (Female readers, pretend that your student is a male.) The idea of having uncommitted sex is morally objectionable to most of us and to you too, I presume, so your advice would be that it's a bad idea. To tell them about condoms, birth control, and to be aware of STDs - that is, to provide information in the event that they decide to do it anyway - would be analagous to the doctor providing the couple with parenting information, just in case they decide to perform the act anyway. That the doctor provided them with a direct link to someone who was willing to perform IVF for them seems to me to be similar to you recommending a certain prostitute to your pupil. That is, you're saying that you're opposed to them performing this act that you find morally objectionable, but you're enabling them to perform it anyway. The only area where my example falls short is that I presume that you would absolutely not have sex with any of your pupils, and thus I can't bring in the discrimination factor to show just why I'm so confused. I could modify my example a bit more, but it's already getting to another touchy moral issue. Perhaps I should start with a new analogy: Imagine that there's a gas station run by a man who believes that anyone who is Asian, young, male, and driving a yellow sports car is a criminal and should not be given gas that would permit him to terrorize society with further criminal acts. This man refuses service to anyone fitting this description because he feels that it is the moral thing to do. Tell me, if he gives detailed instructions to those drivers for how to get to the nearest gas station that will service them, what sort of a message does it send? It shows a clear bias, but the bias no longer even makes sense. If the man feels that the right thing to do is to keep these people off the road, then why is he helping them to obtain the service that he feels would be so morally objectionable to perform? I may be misunderstanding the religious moral dilemma that the doctor faced. I was under the impression that it was considered morally wrong to help a homosexual couple to attain a child because it would be a disservice to the child, due to the belief that a homosexual couple can't raise a child properly. That belief could also be taken farther to say that it would erode the stability and morality of society. Is that incorrect? Quote:
I don't know what research shows about children raised by single parents. However, there is a lot more that should go into the decision than a single bit of demographic information. Reasons for wanting to be a parent, the health of the individual, financial status, and current living conditions/area are some important factors that I can think of rather quickly that would matter quite a bit and could outweigh the fact that the individual is single. It makes sense, doesn't it? I'm sure that most of us can think of an example of a really excellent single parent just as we can also think of an example of two very bad parents who make up a stable nuclear family unit. If various studies and research have shown that single parents need to be scrutinized more heavily than parents in a nuclear family, then as long as the research is credible I think that it is justified. Similarly, if research found that homosexual couples should also be scrutinized more heavily, so be it. However, to deny treatment without further consideration just because an individual is marked by a certain demographic seems wrong to me. Quote:
If it's a case of the second, then I still find his actions to be hypocritical. He's not performing the act because he finds it to be morally objectionable. I don't expect him to blacklist the couple from other IVF doctors, but he doesn't need to go out of his way to help them find a doctor who will perform the procedure. Just how morally objectionable is it?
__________________
|
|||
2008-06-22, 01:36 | Link #507 | |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Quote:
If I were to be someone targeting easy money, I would sue him to earn that easy money (I heard this kind of exploits a lot). If I feel letting that to happen might encourage similar treatments in the state or the country at higher frequency, then I would take the steps to prevent that from happening, only by making the court either cancel that person's license or give a final warning as to what he may expect if he repeats this again. If a person knows that the laws require equal treatment to the patients and wants to follow that path by promising himself not to follow it accordingly, then he should either stop walking that path, or target to work at a place consisting of people that think and live like him. |
|
2008-06-22, 01:50 | Link #508 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
I'm trying to understand him, but I'm having difficulty understanding it. My sympathy for him varies depending on what I try to visualize his decision as. As I am not anti-homosexual myself, it's the only way that I can come to understand why he did what he did. For example, let's compare it to a scenario where a doctor does not feel comfortable euthanizing (assisted suicide) a child patient. If the doctor wanted to comply with the patient's orders he could recommend another doctor who would perform the act. Such a situation seems understandable and even commendable, and I could see a potential parallel with the issue we're discussing here. I will not take this analogy any farther, however, because it doesn't parallel this issue quite so nicely. The doctor's reason for refusing service makes a big difference. If he refused because he firmly believes that homosexuals can't raise children properly and he wants no part in bringing a child of theirs into the world, that's a bias but it's one that he's entitled to have. However, to then say that he won't serve them (simply because they're homosexuals) but he knows some other doctor who will seems very strange. What kind of a message does that send, to say that you won't do it yourself because of who your clients are, but you know of someone who doesn't mind that and will provide the service? Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-06-22, 02:15 | Link #509 | |
Μ ε r c ü r υ
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Quote:
But, if he is sincere in his belief of not being able to help because he thinks of himself as the one to directly answer God in the other world, then he can also see himself in a position not to let them leave without giving any guidance, as it is a help that is also suggested by the same God. The original decision belongs to the people who came to him, so he is not responsible with how this ends. But, he may feel himself responsible for what he actively does. Well, in any case, it is not easy to understand the feelings of a religious person, as it may vary a lot depending on the character of the person. You can only see the result, so it may offend you. But, in reality what he does might just be the best he can feel he can do for you. Here, I am not sure if there is a balance between the laws and the beliefs of the society to prevent such offenses. |
|
2008-06-22, 02:41 | Link #510 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
And as I said - it's a compromise. Some people in this thread would have liked for him to go all the way and service the couple, homosexual or not. I'm sure some fundies would have liked for him to stick to his guns 100% and not have anything to do with them. I think recommending another doctor is just his way of meeting society halfway. |
|
2008-06-22, 02:52 | Link #511 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
I can accept that he may have been trying to negotiate between feeling that it was wrong for this couple to have a child but still attempted to meet his professional obligations. It still feels wrong to me overall, though. Sexuality is one thing, but what if we applied this to an ethnicity situation? I think it would be considered inappropriate by everyone immediately. (That is, assuming that race alone was the deciding factor; I've been assuming that the couple's homosexuality was the reason for the doctor's refusal to perform the service, but I don't think that we can say that such an assumption is 100% correct at this point.) To those of you who feel that the doctor wasn't wrong in what he did, would you feel differently if he had denied the procedure to a couple belonging to an ethnic minority, simply for their ethnicity?
__________________
|
|
2008-06-22, 11:04 | Link #513 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
this is america, lawsuits are the norm. and depending on how his insurance contract reads, most likely it will be coverd by his insurance. but he will see a significant jump in premium on his renewal. With some exclusions in place or a outright non-renewal.
__________________
|
|
2008-06-22, 14:48 | Link #514 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
Quote:
I'm sorry but even the religious argument does not hold up well under scrutiny for this matter... or more exactly, its an example of very selective "pick and choose" which injunctions bother one. (as far as religion goes... the older I get and the more i *examine* various religions - it is probably fair to say the less "religious" I get though I've come to appreciate certain value systems)
__________________
|
|
2008-06-22, 15:16 | Link #515 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I'm not sure which bothers me more. Complete acceptance of a belief system, which spells blindness and thoughtlessness, but at least introduces an element of consistency to the irrationality of having a religion in the first place, or "pick and choose", which means that the believer at least did something to make the religion his own? |
2008-06-22, 17:20 | Link #516 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
"Ah wants mah lahbster and mah polyester/cotton blends... but none of dat 'weird stuff'. Now scuse me while I sell my daughter according to dah rules..."
<shrug> some focus on the upbeat, forgiving, charitable aspects ... some focus on the hateful, selfish, "I'm going and you're not" aspects.
__________________
|
2008-06-22, 23:21 | Link #517 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
The way i see it, the main concern is for the child. Logically thinking a child growing up with 2 mothers and no father will experience some trouble while growing up. When the child grows up, looking for a partner may also be a problem. The doctor may not want to be the one who is responsible (consciencely speaking) for whatever may happen to the child in the future. Of course, nothing may happen to the child. But it will be something that will bug him for perhaps the rest of his life.
I don't think its discriminatory as it is not as if he refused to help them at all. It is only the particular procedure that he refuse to do. |
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
Thread Tools | |
|
|