Christian doctors are told they cannot refuse to treat people

Germany
August 19, 2008 10:52am CST
The highest court in California has told two Christian doctors they cannot refuse to treat people just because they are homosexual. Is this right? Are the doctors right to religious freedom being abused? What do you think?
3 people like this
9 responses
@Ravenladyj (22904)
• United States
19 Aug 08
OKay I'm sorry but they became doctors in order to help ppl I"m assuming...so thats what they need to do..HELP THEM...I think the court was RIGHT and no their religious freedom isnt being abused at all as far as I'm concerned..If they wanted to ONLY treat specific ppl they should ONLY work at facilities geared to the specific ppl they favour, a practice that just turns my damn stomach I must admit....Shame on them!
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
22 Aug 08
This really really bugs me. Really. I heard about the pharmacist who didn't want to dispense birth control pills to somebody with a prescription from her doctor, and that really annoyed me. Pissed me off. I am GLAD if the court rules that they HAVE to perform their job duties regardless of their beliefs. It is just sad that a court had to do this in order to get people to not have beliefs and personal drama/agendas interfere.
@sedel1027 (17846)
• Cupertino, California
19 Aug 08
When they became a doctor they knew that they would have to treat a variety of people from different races, religions, etc. I find it very sad that a court has to tell a professional that they need to do their job!
1 person likes this
• India
20 Aug 08
And I want to add that their kind of idea is not at derived from the Bible. Their Bible must be different and they must be worshiping Jesus of their own creati0n. I don't see how a genuine follower of Jesus could refuse treatment to certain kind of people because of their 'belief'.
1 person likes this
@justinus (1104)
• Karawaci, Indonesia
21 Aug 08
Yes, the court is right. in my country it is ONE IMPORTANT chapter that doctor SHOULD NOT refuse any patient
1 person likes this
• India
20 Aug 08
I don't think it's a denial of the rights of the doctors. I see no reason why a person cannot be given treatment because they are homosexual. Jesus 'treated' all sorts of people, whether ultimately they choose or otherwise.
1 person likes this
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Religion has nothing to do with your job. If you are a doctor, you are required to treat your patients - people who PAY you for your services. You cannot refuse to do your job due to your personal beliefs, because your personal beliefs should not spill into your job nor prevent you from fulfilling any of your job duties. If they do, then you seriously need to reconsider your job choice. I agree completely with the ruling of the court, and I hope that every court upholds the same stance. Refusing to treat somebody because of gender preference is discrimination already, religious freedom only has to do with *yourself*. When other people are involved you have no right to complain about your religious rights being violated because other people probably do not share your religious beliefs so your hangups do not apply to other people - who are only hiring you to do a job.
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Aug 08
I think these doctors should follow the example of Jesus who never refused to help anyone who came to Him for help.
• United States
20 Aug 08
I think the standard disclaimer "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be able to be placed in any place of business. Forced acceptance isn't acceptance. If they're working for a state-sponsored hospital, or some other way recieving money from the state, then I think that the state should say that any law-abiding tax paying citizen should have use of the service. But if the doctor is in private practice and does not want to get involved with people, then I think that they should have the right to make their own choices. If they've got the money to turn away customers that have different moral backgrounds then they should have that freedom. That's what freedom really means. That doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with being homosexual. That's a completely separate issue. I'd say the same thing if he were refusing to treat people with brown hair, or green eyes, or ear rings, or only people who came to his office in buisiness suits. It's his buisiness, he should be able to run it however he sees fit, so long as he's not doing anything illegal. It's his life, he should be able to work with or not work with whomever he likes, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal together.
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
22 Aug 08
I believe in freedom but not freedom to discriminate. Discrimination is supposed to be unlawful, and I stand behind anybody who fires or files complaints against somebody who is discriminating. I have seen the whole 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' but for the most part, I think that pertains more toward someone who comes in and screams at them or is combative or tries to cut in line, or cannot pay and refuses, things like that. If someone is acting in a rotten manner, then it is not discrimination to throw them out. If they are in private practice, I still think they should not discriminate and decide to only serve some people and not others. Most people do use some form of insurance, most cash paying patients are NOT well off, they can't afford or get insurance and usually they can't pay the whole bill either. If you use insurance, that is public money and nobody using any form of public money or money from a pool that is not all yours should be discriminated against or refused service.
@Galena (9110)
19 Aug 08
see I think the issue is that this is a treatment they would perform on a straight person. it was artificial insemination wasn't it? so they don't consider AI immoral, so refusing it on grounds of someones sexuality is against the law, surely? this isn't the same as, for example, expecting them to perform abortion if it's against their beleifs. they are discriminating on the grounds of the individuals involved, which is not okay. it's like refusing a mixed race couple IVF if you were against mixed race relationships.
@Galena (9110)
28 Aug 08
I never said it was the same as the abortion argument, rather that it wasn't the same. after all, if they were refusing abortion on religious grounds, they would be refusing to perform them on anyone at all. in this case, they are, as their job, performing IVF, and then chose not to treat someone who was gay. wheareas they would treat someone who was straight. therefore it's discrimination, and not something they should be allowed to try and claim is on religious grounds.
• Canada
19 Aug 08
I agree with the the court. There are two thing that should not be mixed and that's religion and science. If you have religious beliefs about a certain type of human being being bad then being a doctor is not the right career choice for you. Doctors MUST treat any ill/injured person without discrimination. The only thing for those doctors to do is be professional about their jobs and leave their religious beliefs behind while working. After work, if they want to hate on homosexuals then that's their perogitive. NEVER MIX YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS UP WITH YOU WORK- ESPECIALLY IF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE SCIENCES!
1 person likes this