What is Digg?380 Comments
- flossdaily, on 08/18/2008, -21/+199A brief history of American stupidity:
“Indians are sub-human. Let’s kill them, and take their land.”
Later:
“Wow, now that we’ve killed all those Indians, it seems like maybe they weren’t really so bad. HOW could we have been so blind and ignorant? SHUT UP, DARKIE, NO ONE’S TALKING TO YOU!”
Later:
“Wow, now that black people have won their freedom, its easy to see how stupid our prejudice was. How could our ancestors not have seen the evils of slavery? Hey, sugar *****, be doll and get me another coffee. Shut your mouth, this is man talk.”
Later:
"Wow, now that women have equality in voting and the workplace, it seems downright ignorant of us to ever have thought they were inferior. Now, homosexuals on the other hand... those guys are sub-human. God wants us to hate them..." - HastyBoom, on 08/18/2008, -10/+142Question.
Why would a professional person like a Doctor discriminate against a gay person?
It just doesn't make any sense to me. - cave, on 08/18/2008, -14/+123Another great win for California, although I don't know if it's a good idea to let people this retarded practice medicine at all.
- Kidtuf, on 08/18/2008, -10/+119Good.
- flossdaily, on 08/18/2008, -5/+99religion
- fade79, on 08/19/2008, -10/+91Any health care provider (MD, Pharmacists, etc) that denies a person medical attention should have their license revoked. It's just sad that we even have to pass a law for this.
- justbloggin, on 08/19/2008, -2/+57In the name of religion I am withholding care!? Hmmm...I gotta ask "what would Jesus do? "
- Lagstorm, on 08/19/2008, -7/+61Because they took the hypocritical oath instead of the hippocratic one.
- almondfilter3, on 08/19/2008, -5/+43The fact that it needed to get to the highest court in the state, makes our country pretty pathetic.
- fasda, on 08/18/2008, -24/+61well if you change American to most civilizations then thats a pretty accurate description.
- jaxter2010, on 06/17/2009, -1/+37Here is a question though for gays/lesbians. Do you really want a doctor whom despises you so much that a law was required to get him to see you? I wouldn't trust any of his diagnoses.
- justbloggin, on 08/19/2008, -6/+41This had to go to California's highest court? The medical association should have pulled the license of any doctor that refused to offer care for this reason. They are unfit to practice medicine.
- gmiley, on 08/19/2008, -2/+32It makes me sick that such a ruling is even needed. The only thing a doctor should be concerned with is curing the sick and injured people. Period. It doesn't matter who they are, what they look like, or what their beliefs are. If a patient asks for help, the doctor provides it.
- scbysnx, on 08/19/2008, -7/+35I love how everyone diggs you down.. pinning all of humanity's shortcomings on the united states is the cool thing to do!
- DavidGX, on 08/19/2008, -8/+34I agree, anyone who shows the slightest hint of not doing their job due to their imaginary friends beliefs = FIRED. Instantly and on the spot.
- Palaceguard, on 08/19/2008, -5/+28Where does it say in a religion to not treat gays? Not in my religion.
- kingmanic, on 08/19/2008, -0/+22Intelligence and human compassion and a sense of equality are three distinct variables.
- lemur, on 08/19/2008, -8/+30I think there is a lot of confusion about the meaning of this article, since a lot of people must not have read it.
Just to be clear, this is a case about two fertility "doctors" refusing to artificially inseminate the woman because of their views on child care. Their personal beliefs are probably something along the lines of... they don't believe that homosexuality is socially acceptable, so they will not place children in the care of people who would teach a child that it is acceptable.
In my opinion, it is within the rights of the doctors to refuse this type of service. The main reason I believe this is that this service is not essential to the health and well being of the customer, so not performing the service can't be considered unethical. In general I believe that businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone (these doctors are merely running a business), so I won't make a special exception just because this is a controversial situation.
If some doctors refuse to do this type of service, all it does is create more business for other doctors who will, so it's good for the market (promoting diversity).
If it were a matter of life and death it would be different; I believe it's absolutely necessary for a human being to save the life of another human being if possible, but that's not the issue here. - ihateaubergine, on 08/19/2008, -5/+26Jesus christ... what's wrong with doctors? This ruling was a no-brainier.
- gmiley, on 08/19/2008, -4/+23Yeah, you didn't know? Everything wrong in the world is all because of us here in the States. /s
- phrenzy, on 08/19/2008, -4/+23Cool, next time you get mugged or your car gets stolen you can have the cop refuse service because you are wearing leather and he is a member of PETA.
- jessehadden, on 08/19/2008, -4/+23Thank you for illustrating why the "free market" *alone* is not an adequate model for reality.
Do you want to die on the E.R. table because the on-duty doc doesn't like something about you, and it just plain took too long for them to get someone else to look at you? Or is this situation further up on that old slippery slope? - diggproof, on 08/19/2008, -1/+18I don't know whether to bury you because I disapprove or to digg you because you're right.
- stonebear, on 08/19/2008, -0/+17Jesus wept.
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -1/+18Actually yes, they should give emergency medical care free of charge and they regularly do.
- seantubridy, on 08/19/2008, -13/+29How can someone be smart enough to make it through medical school but so stupid that they believe homosexuality is wrong?
- diggproof, on 08/19/2008, -1/+16You're a stooge.
- cadmiumpaint, on 08/19/2008, -4/+19pull your head out of your ass and think
healthcare is a basic human right. there is no room for discrimination when it comes to a doctor deciding what person is more worthy to receive healthcare. - theImmodiumGuy, on 08/19/2008, -7/+21These doctors did not refuse care to a sick or injured patient. They refused to provide artificial insemination to a lesbian couple. The headline is misleading, because these doctors did not refuse care, they refused to provide a service. Desire to get pregnant is not a disease nor a life-threatening condition. Not only that, but the doctors referred the couple to other specialists who would provide them with the service, and the couple used them to have three children.
- Akairenn, on 08/19/2008, -0/+13Try not to forget - doctors are people, too.
Graduating from med school doesn't disqualify a person from being a complete douchebag. - kingmanic, on 08/19/2008, -1/+14If I'm gay, and the only specialist in my small town was a homophone. I rather see someone who hates me then drive to the nearest other specialist. If I'm in emergency and the doctor objects to my life, I'd rather he just does his job rather then wait for another doctor and possibly endanger my life.
I'm nto gay, but I'd the same rationale if a doctor hated Asians. - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -6/+18It would have been better if these two doctors were stripped of the licenses, but I'm glad this court ruled correctly.
- TheGreenBuddha, on 08/19/2008, -4/+15It's an issue of morality and responsibility. If President Bush was faced with a tragedy like Hurricane Katrina and decided not to give any sort of relief whatsoever to the victims, sure it would be his free choice, but ultimately it's a wrong choice not only because it's cruel but also because it was his (or some underlying organization's) responsibility.
- kingmanic, on 08/19/2008, -0/+11So where you stats outlining how having TWO gay parents are different then TWO straight ones? You just rattled off a stat about parents in general and then mentions gay couples. We have no stats on that I am aware of. I'd rather have a gay couple choose to have a kid then the majority of the accidental mom and dads who ***** up their children.
- Spytap, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12Don't care. They're still doctors. Act like it.
You could argue that the morning after pill is a "service" and they could deny it, and that amount of time between finding and getting to a new doctor could be what gets someone pregnant.
Then it's a very short route to "I will no provide this emergency abortion because I am against it for religious reasons" and the woman dies while finding someone else.
Much better to say "You're doctors, your beliefs are irrelevant to the care of your patients." - ptsuk, on 08/19/2008, -0/+11Not that I'm against this ruling, but the first option for any couple unable to conceive the old fashioned way, should have to go through adoption first, if then there are no more kiddies to adopt THEN you can get artificial insemination.
There are too many kids who need parents in this world that if we did this first before creating news ones this world would be a better place.
Lineage be damned. - dragon76, on 08/19/2008, -0/+11You will find that these type of people believe they are doing "God's work" because, apparently, they believe God can't do it on his own.
- jaxter2010, on 06/17/2009, -0/+11Sorry quez, I wrote it one way, then did a hack job rephrasing it and didn't proofread. I will try to be a more responsible commenter in the future.
- kent1146, on 08/19/2008, -11/+21What saddens me is that we need a court ruling to tell people that even gays are human beings.
- quez, on 08/19/2008, -5/+15I'm not usually much of a grammar Nazi, but for *****'s sake, please don't misuse 'whom'.
- Spytap, on 08/19/2008, -1/+12Because one would assume that the affected group would be happy about receiving equal treatment under the law. His point was that as someone who is not a member of that group, he is happy also. Also, presumably, inviting others not of that group to be happy as well.
- ThinkCap, on 08/19/2008, -0/+10As someone who works as a doctor, I echo the thought that doctors are only people, and that personal judgment makes up a large part of what we do, far more than I think the average health service user would like. There are of course best practices for each situation, but bending the rules to provide the level of care you think is appropriate is a reality.
In medschool, we actually had a group exercise on exactly this scenario. I found it rediculous that we had to cover this, having grown up in a liberal environment where sexuality was not an issue. However, there was a female in my class who stated firmly that she would not provide healthcare to homosexuals, because they were living in violation of gods laws.
When asked how she was going to know someone was homosexual, let alone how she was going to refuse someone healthcare on these grounds, she replied that 'god would never put her in that situation'. Truly one of the most f'd up things I ever saw in medschool. - bobbi21, on 08/19/2008, -0/+10Although it should. We technically have ethics classes to teach us to be ethical, but it's not like they can really test if we believe it. Really should be better screening for jerks in med school though. There are way too many in my class.
(One of the first things taught at my med school is that we aren't allowed to refuse treatment to patients based on religion, sexual orientation etc etc. I thought it was a law already, which didn't need a supreme court decision, but maybe I just assumed that since it seems so idiotic not to have it.) - Tahin, on 08/19/2008, -1/+11How so? I consider myself completely heterosexual, but I have nothing against gays. That's like saying that if you aren't black you're racist, except that while it's only possible to be homophobic against gays, it's possible to be racist against more than black people. Regardless, the analogy is close enough.
- bobbi21, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1090% of the people jesus "treated" or preached to where hookers and thieves and tax collectors. Even if these ppl think being gay is wrong it makes little sense.
- Fihiro, on 08/19/2008, -4/+14Thank you Lemur, one of the few sensible people who've posted today.
- CamperBob, on 08/19/2008, -0/+10It turns out that medical doctors, as a group, are surprisingly stupid... or at least, surprisingly unscientific. The idea of "doctor == overpaid mechanic" has always seemed ridiculous to me, but I'm starting to see where the sentiment came from.
At least in the US, one (credible) survey indicates that only 78% of them accept Darwinian evolution as the best known model for speciation. 50% of physicians agreed that it should be permissible to teach "intelligent design" in public schools.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_200 ... - Fihiro, on 08/19/2008, -6/+15No one posting has even read the article, I believe.
It wasn't an issue of emergency, trauma, it was an issue that the doctors did not wish to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple.
Put yourself in their shoes, they were raised to think in that manner, and to them marriage is a sanctity between a man and a woman. Nothing else.
From the article, it seems as though they had acted professionally and referred the couple to another doctor who is more than willing to do the procedure. The issue was dealt with, but the couple had to object because their feelings got hurt.
That is all. - JoeMondo, on 08/19/2008, -1/+10Are you suggesting charging a different fee for certain classes of people?
And you think that wouldn't be discrimination....how? -
Show 51 - 100 of 395 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is