Michigan pediatrician: God doesn’t want me to treat your baby because you’re lesbians

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Feb 19, 2015 5:29 PM GMT
    Michigan pediatrician: God doesn’t want me to treat your baby because you’re lesbians

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/michigan-pediatrician-god-doesnt-want-me-to-treat-your-baby-because-youre-lesbians/



    https://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+Vesna+Roi&oq=Dr.+Vesna+Roi&aqs=chrome..69i57.357227j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2015 6:09 PM GMT
    How someone this stupid got through medical school is beyond me.
  • NeuralShock

    Posts: 411

    Feb 19, 2015 6:51 PM GMT
    ant811 saidHow someone this stupid got through medical school is beyond me.

    Basically the #1 thing medschools look at is GPA, and once you get in the success rate of graduation is extremely (EXTREMELY) high because they literally will have the faculty bend over backwards to accommodate you.

    So basically they got a good undergrad GPA however they did, perhaps fluffy GPA booster courses, and then applied got in and once you're in you basically are guaranteed the degree.


    Adding at a later time:
    I am in NO CAPACITY generalizing this to apply to every physician, that would be a ridiculous and abhorrently incorrect assumption. However a few people have done it that I know in person- so it isn't unheard of.

    This is in no way meaning to disrespect the profession, the people, etc. I am making this infinitely clear here because someone took this post wildly to a side that I never meant.

    I have the utmost respect for the profession and people willing to dedicate their lives to such a demanding career, however people like the one in this article references make me HIGHLY question how they got into medicine in the first place- thus the post and skepticism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2015 7:02 PM GMT
    Isn't there some sort of professional ethical issue involved here? That physicians are required to treat all patients who come to them?
  • NeuralShock

    Posts: 411

    Feb 19, 2015 7:06 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidIsn't there some sort of professional ethical issue involved here? That physicians are required to treat all patients who come to them?

    I honestly would have said I was 100% certain of it, but I am not familiar with Michigan law. But the hypocritical oath seems strong in this physician.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2015 7:22 PM GMT
    NeuralShock said
    Art_Deco saidIsn't there some sort of professional ethical issue involved here? That physicians are required to treat all patients who come to them?

    I honestly would have said I was 100% certain of it, but I am not familiar with Michigan law. But the hypocritical oath seems strong in this physician.

    I think It's the Hippocratic Oath, not the hypocritical oath. After the ancient Green physician Hippocrates. The Oath is likely apocryphal, written down after his death, and appears in several versions.

    Nevertheless, it forms the ethical framework for modern medical practice. Refusing to care for a patient because of their sexual orientation may not be allowed under commonly accepted US medical ethics. But I'm sure Republican lawmakers will defend his decision.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Feb 19, 2015 7:31 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    NeuralShock said
    Art_Deco saidIsn't there some sort of professional ethical issue involved here? That physicians are required to treat all patients who come to them?

    I honestly would have said I was 100% certain of it, but I am not familiar with Michigan law. But the hypocritical oath seems strong in this physician.

    I think It's the Hippocratic Oath, not the hypocritical oath. After the ancient Green physician Hippocrates. The Oath is likely apocryphal, written down after his death, and appears in several versions.

    Nevertheless, it forms the ethical framework for modern medical practice. Refusing a patient because of their sexual orientation may not be allowed under commonly accepted US medical ethics. But I'm sure Republican lawmakers will defend his decision.


    ummm I think NeuralShock was being a little tongue-in-cheek
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2015 7:44 PM GMT
    tj85016 said
    Art_Deco said
    NeuralShock said
    Art_Deco saidIsn't there some sort of professional ethical issue involved here? That physicians are required to treat all patients who come to them?

    I honestly would have said I was 100% certain of it, but I am not familiar with Michigan law. But the hypocritical oath seems strong in this physician.

    I think It's the Hippocratic Oath, not the hypocritical oath. After the ancient Green physician Hippocrates. The Oath is likely apocryphal, written down after his death, and appears in several versions.

    Nevertheless, it forms the ethical framework for modern medical practice. Refusing a patient because of their sexual orientation may not be allowed under commonly accepted US medical ethics. But I'm sure Republican lawmakers will defend his decision.

    ummm I think NeuralShock was being a little tongue-in-cheek

    Yes, I wasn't sure. neural may have intended to imply this doctor is hypocritical.

    But yah know, this is what we US gays face - doctors and others who refuse to serve us because we're gay. Whether it's baking a cake or caring for a baby, the Right Wing has brought us to this.

    And some of you guys wanna continue voting for these politicians who promote laws that allow this? Because why? You think it helps the economy? Which it actually doesn't.

    Yeah, deny a baby medical care so the 1-percenters can make more profit thanks to Republicans being in office. What f***ed-up logic THAT is. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2015 7:54 PM GMT
    NeuralShock said
    ant811 saidHow someone this stupid got through medical school is beyond me.

    Basically the #1 thing medschools look at is GPA, and once you get in the success rate of graduation is extremely (EXTREMELY) high because they literally will have the faculty bend over backwards to accommodate you.

    So basically they got a good undergrad GPA however they did, perhaps fluffy GPA booster courses, and then applied got in and once you're in you basically are guaranteed the degree.


    Way to turn a post about one bad physician into something saying all physicians ONLY have good grades. Yor really don't know what you're talking about (my credentials, I went to medical school and did interviews for my alma mater.)
    GPA is only one thing among MANY that the admission committee Looks at. My school (very good but not ivy league) gets roughly 5000 applicants, interviews 500 people for 100 spots. Virtually everyone who applies has good grades! Test scores and personal statement and extra curricular activities matter way more than grades.

    Doctors have a duty to treat people who need treatment. However doctors do not have to continue being a patient's doctor. They can offer a referral to someone else. But you don't have a right to be a part of a doctor's practice.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Feb 19, 2015 7:56 PM GMT
    ^^

    meh, with 7.2 billion people on the planet, there's bound to be a few hundred million nut jobs - and FOX News will find a way to cover each and every one icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2015 8:30 PM GMT


    He's basing his decision on the Corinthians clobber passage, and here is his hypocrisy for all to observe:

    "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…"

    So Mr Doctor, you are screening patients for all the above, or just cherry-picking gays? Hmmm?

    To everyone else, Christian and non Christian alike, this is where the bible writers/editors fall squarely on their asses. Notice one of the sins is 'effeminate', not gay, not this or that, just effeminate. Some had a personal axe to grind when they wrote/translated that.

    So someone can publicly demand that the dear Doctor must deny service to these other kinds of sinners as well, and someone should, and call him on his kookoo-ness.
  • NeuralShock

    Posts: 411

    Feb 19, 2015 9:01 PM GMT
    Wyndahoi said
    NeuralShock said
    ant811 saidHow someone this stupid got through medical school is beyond me.

    Basically the #1 thing medschools look at is GPA, and once you get in the success rate of graduation is extremely (EXTREMELY) high because they literally will have the faculty bend over backwards to accommodate you.

    So basically they got a good undergrad GPA however they did, perhaps fluffy GPA booster courses, and then applied got in and once you're in you basically are guaranteed the degree.


    Way to turn a post about one bad physician into something saying all physicians ONLY have good grades. Yor really don't know what you're talking about (my credentials, I went to medical school and did interviews for my alma mater.)
    GPA is only one thing among MANY that the admission committee Looks at. My school (very good but not ivy league) gets roughly 5000 applicants, interviews 500 people for 100 spots. Virtually everyone who applies has good grades! Test scores and personal statement and extra curricular activities matter way more than grades.

    Doctors have a duty to treat people who need treatment. However doctors do not have to continue being a patient's doctor. They can offer a referral to someone else. But you don't have a right to be a part of a doctor's practice.


    This is an extremely skewed way of interpreting my post and you know (certainly) that I didn't mean it to be generalized across the medical professional population.

    I was BY FAR not suggesting that every applicant got through that way. I am far from unsavvy on the procedures, however fact is that many unique cases can and do get through.

    I was not generalizing to the entire physician population (and to generalize at all about any group is a horrific idea) and your reaction is extremely uncalled for.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Feb 19, 2015 10:54 PM GMT
    metta8 saidMichigan pediatrician: God doesn’t want me to treat your baby because you’re lesbians

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/michigan-pediatrician-god-doesnt-want-me-to-treat-your-baby-because-youre-lesbians/



    https://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.+Vesna+Roi&oq=Dr.+Vesna+Roi&aqs=chrome..69i57.357227j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8


    The mothers stated that they were embarrassed. Why? Is is the doctor who should have been embarrassed.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Feb 19, 2015 11:01 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    He's basing his decision on the Corinthians clobber passage, and here is his hypocrisy for all to observe:

    "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…"

    So Mr Doctor, you are screening patients for all the above, or just cherry-picking gays? Hmmm?

    To everyone else, Christian and non Christian alike, this is where the bible writers/editors fall squarely on their asses. Notice one of the sins is 'effeminate', not gay, not this or that, just effeminate. Some had a personal axe to grind when they wrote/translated that.

    So someone can publicly demand that the dear Doctor must deny service to these other kinds of sinners as well, and someone should, and call him on his kookoo-ness.


    It should be noted that what you quoted is a translation, and a questionable one at that. The definitions of some of the Greek words are not universally agreed upon. That's why some editions of the Bible have footnotes which provide alternative translations. However, it appears that the foaming fundamentalists choose the translation that best supports their foregone conclusions.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Feb 19, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    Now prepare to really get pissed...

    The doctor is an immigrant to the US.

    She lives in Michigan, practices pediatrics in Detroit.

    Michigan has a illegitimacy rate of 32%

    Detroit has a illegitimacy rate of 72%

    Do you want to make bets on her religious beliefs not giving her any problems treating babies with only an UNMARRIED MOTHER?????
    http://www.dadi.org/dn_bleak.htm

    Here's a quote on straight single mothers from link above.

    "Indeed, the number of single moms poses serious social and public-policy dilemmas. It has been well documented and reported, for example, that children born to unmarried women are far more likely to live in poverty, suffer abuse and be neglected. Girls born into these families are more likely to become pregnant than children living with their married parents and continue the generational cycle of unwed motherhood.
    Children from low-income, fatherless households are also more likely to become school dropouts. Children in these families tend to be lower achievers than those from two-parent, higher-income families. These trends generally exist even when a stepfather is present."

    Here's quotes from testimony in the trial about gay parenting that was held in Detroit

    "Professor Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist from Stanford University, told the court early in the trial that “there is no basis” for believing that children develop better in a household led by a man and a woman. “It’s clear that being raised by same-sex parents is no disadvantage to children,” he said, summarising a range of research in the field.

    The court heard that a report by the American Psychological Association, which is frequently cited by campaigners for same-sex marriage, found “not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”."

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/michigan-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-constitution




  • ASHDOD

    Posts: 1057

    Feb 20, 2015 12:02 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidIsn't there some sort of professional ethical issue involved here? That physicians are required to treat all patients who come to them?


    Its called ''hipocrates oath''

    a former member of the israely parlament ,a profesor in medicin , Aryeh Eldad treated lots of palestinian terorists,even though he is extrime-right.he never refused.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Feb 20, 2015 12:47 AM GMT
    I would actually rather have these conservative bigots identify themselves so decent people can avoid them. The last thing I would want is a doctor who is mentally unhinged and secretly hating me because their church has brainwashed them into thinking I'm evil.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidI would actually rather have these conservative bigots identify themselves so decent people can avoid them. The last thing I would want is a doctor who is mentally unhinged and secretly hating me because their church has brainwashed them into thinking I'm evil.




    Absolutely how I feel! There are a lot of much better choices than to have this sort of character treat your child. I totally agree about wanting to know who these people are, so I can dismiss them entirely. No matter if we're talking about physicians, bakers, florists, or ant sort of business person.

    A friend said, "There should be a law forcing all these people to do business with us, and then you'd have a choice." But I already HAVE that choice! Just tell me / publicize their names. We should avoid these people & their businesses completely, & eventually drive them out of business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 1:05 AM GMT
    ant811 saidHow someone this stupid got through medical school is beyond me.
    "Religious Privilege"

    Look it up. It needs to be stopped.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 1:38 AM GMT
    The reality here, gentlemen, is that this sort of thing happens every day. When I was a resident, I was the only one to volunteer to suture a wound on a patient with known HIV disease. No one else wanted to do it.

    With that being said, the smart move would be for these women to file a complaint with the Michigan Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. Nothing may come of the complaint, but it would send a message and probably irritate her.

    In my opinion, they should have done their homework and found a GLBT-friendly physician in the first place. There are tons of us out there.

    Also, by choosing a gay-friendly provider, your money is going to people with your best interest at heart. Why would you want to spend your hard-earned dollars on some religious nutcase?

    Easy to do: www.glma.org

    And, FYI: The Hippocratic Oath is antiquated and optional. I never took it and no physician is required to take this oath to become licensed.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 5:42 AM GMT
    NeuralShock said
    ant811 saidHow someone this stupid got through medical school is beyond me.

    Basically the #1 thing medschools look at is GPA, and once you get in the success rate of graduation is extremely (EXTREMELY) high because they literally will have the faculty bend over backwards to accommodate you.

    So basically they got a good undergrad GPA however they did, perhaps fluffy GPA booster courses, and then applied got in and once you're in you basically are guaranteed the degree.


    Adding at a later time:
    I am in NO CAPACITY generalizing this to apply to every physician, that would be a ridiculous and abhorrently incorrect assumption. However a few people have done it that I know in person- so it isn't unheard of.

    This is in no way meaning to disrespect the profession, the people, etc. I am making this infinitely clear here because someone took this post wildly to a side that I never meant.

    I have the utmost respect for the profession and people willing to dedicate their lives to such a demanding career, however people like the one in this article references make me HIGHLY question how they got into medicine in the first place- thus the post and skepticism.


    Intelligence and book smarts do not necessarily go hand in hand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 12:53 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    He's basing his decision on the Corinthians clobber passage, and here is his hypocrisy for all to observe:

    "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…"

    So Mr Doctor, you are screening patients for all the above, or just cherry-picking gays? Hmmm?

    To everyone else, Christian and non Christian alike, this is where the bible writers/editors fall squarely on their asses. Notice one of the sins is 'effeminate', not gay, not this or that, just effeminate. Some had a personal axe to grind when they wrote/translated that.

    So someone can publicly demand that the dear Doctor must deny service to these other kinds of sinners as well, and someone should, and call him on his kookoo-ness.
    Homosexuals wasn't added to that verse until the 1940s, so the doctor is clueless anyway.
  • johnnyqhomo7

    Posts: 119

    Feb 20, 2015 4:17 PM GMT
    I apologize as a gay christian for this womans behavior. We aren't all like that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 4:38 PM GMT
    I once worked with a judgemental favoriot playing morally bancrupt medical officer who is a licened MD.
    Sick call dropped from a avg of 30 patients a day to 5 because our Marines did not want the half assed care he provided. They instead just saw us Corpsmen in the barracks and made do.
    A MD is no garentee of a morally sound provider.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 4:54 PM GMT
    CLTMike46 said
    And, FYI: The Hippocratic Oath is antiquated and optional. I never took it and no physician is required to take this oath to become licensed.

    Yes, not an actual oath taken by modern physicians. But as I wrote above:

    "[The Hippocratic Oath] forms the ethical framework for modern medical practice. Refusing to care for a patient because of their sexual orientation may not be allowed under commonly accepted US medical ethics. But I'm sure Republican lawmakers will defend this decision."

    As you know there are more modern standards of medical ethics followed, and even enforced today by medical boards. But the concept of having medical ethics originates with Hippocrates. Would you agree, as a physician, that refusing to render medical care because of sexual orientation falls outside those ethical standards in the US at present?

    (Not being confrontational, but rather, inviting the input of a medical professional)