CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2008, 11:01 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Thank you for clarifying...

Hey now that I turned 40 two weeks or so ago, I really feel close to you.
belated Happy Birthday to you

I hope you got more than a stone in your sack !
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 11:15 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Do you want doctors to have the right not to perform plastic surgery on young girls because they're uncomfortable performing the surgery for reasons of conscience?

This isn't a black and white case. No doctor should be allowed to decide to harm (or allow harm to come to) a patient because of an issue of conscience, but if its not a life/death issue there is more room for discussion.
There is a difference between ethics and morals. This would be an ethical issue.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-19-2008, 11:28 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 02:03 PM
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 11:33 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????
If the doctors offer abortions, and then say

"We refuse to serve you
you are less than human
go to a veterinarian."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-19-2008, 11:51 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????
You are grossly misunderstanding the ruling. No one is forcing a podiatrist to perform an abortion.

If the doctor doesn't believe in insemination then they can go and be an orthopedic surgeon.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-19-2008, 11:52 PM   #36
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it.

Unless the patient is in a small town.

Good thing the docs in Canada can't refuse to treat over-reacting conspriracy theorists who really dislike assertive women.

You'd be fucked.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 12:13 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
If the doctor doesn't believe in insemination then they can go and be an orthopedic surgeon.
indeed.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 12:13 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
This ruling is bullshit. Plain and simple. There are enough doctors out there (especially in the United States!!!) that if a few don't want to do a procedure the patient can always find a doctor who will do it. If the facist section of the leftwing had it's way this law would apply to abortion as well. Granted, I still think the doctors in this case are boobs, but what about a law like this pertaining to abortion. The government cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion if he/she does not believe in it...can they????
What is your experience with California state discrimination law? Which section of the law do you think was misapplied?

You aren't just rejecting this court's ruling because you disagree with the result, right?
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 12:27 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
What is your experience with California state discrimination law? Which section of the law do you think was misapplied?

You aren't just rejecting this court's ruling because you disagree with the result, right?
Apparently reading the actual case is superfluous.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-20-2008, 12:47 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Apparently reading the actual case is superfluous.
When it comes to cases with ethical and moral issues, I don't understand why some people view the courts almost religiously- like they're deciding good and evil for us. The issue the SC decided was more worldly, simply "was this permissible under California law", and the answer was evidently "no". That's it. The law could be stupid, but that's not a judge's fault. I don't have anything invested in the California decision, if their reasoning was flawed I'd genuinely be interested to hear where.

Ironically, most people would probably say that evaluating a ruling based on your gut emotion, not the case law is the definition of an activist court.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 12:49 AM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:03 PM
The thing is, most of the argument on this thread was centred on whether IVF is a necessary medical procedure and whether it is a RIGHT to be inseminated. Neither of these was an actual live issue before the judge. It was really a simple case of statutory interpretation of the relevant provision dealing with discrimination.

So the outrage on this thread is completely unrelated to the case at hand.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-20-2008, 12:51 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 04:03 PM
In reading the info in the original post I got that the legal basis for the judgement has nothing to do with the defendants in the case being doctors or even that what they were selling were medical procedures, but that they are operating a business and as such are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is legally the same as if she went into her local deli and ordered a sandwich. The deli could not refuse to serve her because she is a lesbian.

Interestingly, the doctors may still have been allowed to refuse to treat the plaintiff because she was unmarried at the time she sought treatment from them in 2000. In 2006 the law was amended to include marital status as well, but according to the article it's unclear if change would be retroactive.

Lawyer-type people -- is how I'm reading that correct? If not, where have I gone wrong?
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 10:05 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,997
Local Time: 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post
In reading the info in the original post I got that the legal basis for the judgement has nothing to do with the defendants in the case being doctors or even that what they were selling were medical procedures, but that they are operating a business and as such are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is legally the same as if she went into her local deli and ordered a sandwich. The deli could not refuse to serve her because she is a lesbian.
I'm not a lawyer type but I think that's correct

It gets all complicated apparently because there are females and/or lesbians involved
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 06:30 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Quote:
In reading the info in the original post I got that the legal basis for the judgement has nothing to do with the defendants in the case being doctors or even that what they were selling were medical procedures, but that they are operating a business and as such are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is legally the same as if she went into her local deli and ordered a sandwich. The deli could not refuse to serve her because she is a lesbian.
Is "No shoes, no shirt, no service" discriminatory? Is it illegal? Can you discriminate against someone because they're not holding to what some would say is an arbitrary standard set by the business? Is it illegal for a business to reserve the right to refuse service? I'm intrigued to know what people think these lines should be.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 06:37 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 03:03 PM
don't have time to read the replies but having to have heard about this last night....
I say....

...Good!!
__________________

__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com