NationStates Jolt Archive

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08

I'd go to the state Medical Association and start an investigation into ethics -- and I'd think about possibly taking him to court for discrimination and refusing treatment to a patient who clearly needed it. That is morally and ethically outrageous.

BTW I wouldn't call him Christian -- the Good Samaritan is a better example of what is expected of good Christians.

Isn't that in violation of his hypocratic oath?

In his case, wouldn't it be a Hypocritic Oath? ;)

You expect this from barbarian religions, but not from the US of A.

But maybe he ought to have a look at the passage that says not to hold children responsible for what their parents do - as well as the whole thing about the Levite laws being revoked for Christians. What's he trying to create, a Rabbinic atmosphere?

I don't know if there are these problems in other countries, but dammit, you Americans really need to screen your prospective doctors better.

Isn't that in violation of his hypocratic oath?

You expect this from barbarian religions, but not from the US of A.

But maybe he ought to have a look at the passage that says not to hold children responsible for what their parents do - as well as the whole thing about the Levite laws being revoked for Christians. What's he trying to create, a Rabbinic atmosphere?

Some forms of Christianity are just as barbaric as any violent religion.

Some forms of Christianity are just as barbaric as any violent religion. Yeah, but the Amish balance them out, especially as the cults tend to self-destruct after a while.

http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/time_warp.jpg

Yeah, but the Amish balance them out, especially as the cults tend to self-destruct after a while.

The Amish are kid touchers.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2365919&page=1

The Amish are kid touchers.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2365919&page=1 Heard of the tournante?

Or the Pakistani concept of "honour"? Far more of them than Amish!

Funny, I consider myself a Christian, but no where have I ever seen Christianity forbiding tatoos, in fact I have one on my left arm. :eek:

You expect this from barbarian religions

Why, yes, I do expect this from Christianity. I expect this from all religion, since all religions are barbarian concepts.

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08

What the hell is with this guy? He should get his medical license revoked permanently.

Funny, I consider myself a Christian, but no where have I ever seen Christianity forbiding tatoos, in fact I have one on my left arm. :eek:

Oh. you arn't going to heavan now. God wants to create a nice Christian atmosphere and tatoos are just sooo out of keeping with that. sorry. :)

"Has anyone ever seen a 'Christian' waiter refuse to serve an obese person annother helping of chips on ethical grounds because 'glutony is a sin.'?" -- somone who I can't remember.

Why, yes, I do expect this from Christianity. I expect this from all religion, since all religions are barbarian concepts. I presume, however, that you would prefer to share a flat with a Sikh than with a Cthulhu worshipper?

The Amish are kid touchers.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2365919&page=1

Hmmmm... seems like your evidence suggests SOME amish people are rapists.

However, the Amish are no more kid touchers than Americans, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. Some of group X doing bad things is not equal to "Group X are kid touchers"

Hmmmm... seems like your evidence suggests SOME amish people are rapists.

However, the Amish are no more kid touchers than Americans, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. Some of group X doing bad things is not equal to "Group X are kid touchers"

Yeah, I know. I just want to destroy the myth that the Amish are free from all the sins and vices we find elsewhere. They're drug dealers too.

Amish drug dealers?
The lure of prohibition profits has reached Pennsylvania's closed Amish community. Two young Amish men were recently sentenced to a year in prison and five years probation each for selling meth and cocaine to their peers. This marks the first time that any Amish have faced federal drug charges.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/14/14News.html

Ban religion. Now.

I presume, however, that you would prefer to share a flat with a Sikh than with a Cthulhu worshipper?

As long as both are shut up by taking it up the poop chute, I don't really care.

Why, yes, I do expect this from Christianity. I expect this from all religion, since all religions are barbarian concepts.

You expect this from barbarian religions, but not from the US of A.

But maybe he ought to have a look at the passage that says not to hold children responsible for what their parents do - as well as the whole thing about the Levite laws being revoked for Christians. What's he trying to create, a Rabbinic atmosphere?

You two have misused the word 'barbarian'. You want the adjective form of the word, not the noun form. The Barbarians were a race of people. IT doesn't describe a religion. For proper usage, please refer to DCD's post below:

Some forms of Christianity are just as barbaric as any violent religion.

You two have misused the word 'barbarian'. You want the adjective form of the word, not the noun form.

We were using the adjective form. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=barbarian)

Learn English before you try correcting other people, OK?

Oh no! One Christian doctor out of many has did something wrong! Whatever shall we do? Christianity must be evil if one Christian doctor did this! Destroy it! :p

Ban religion. Now.

While I agree, you can't just ban it because there are people who strongly believe in that bullshit. A full ban is only possible once people are able to think for themselves; free of religion's influence. Re-education would help that...

I think the ironic thing about this pediatrician is that some people believe that the Bible says that Jesus has a tat! It in the latter parts of Revelation and it says something to the effect of He will descend from the heavens and on His robe and on His thigh it will be written King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Christ: Spent lots of time hanging out with and helping lepers, beggars, prostitutes, and the general dregs of society.

"Christian": Refuses to help anyone who does not live up to his middle-class aesthetic standards.

I don't understand how one gets from one to the other...

I wouldn't call him Christian -- the Good Samaritan is a better example of what is expected of good Christians.
I think that's the point. It seemed rather sarcastic to me, as the guy was claiming he did it because of his Christian beliefs. More like: "How Christian of him:rolleyes:"

I think that's the point. It seemed rather sarcastic to me, as the guy was claiming he did it because of his Christian beliefs. More like: "How Christian of him:rolleyes:"

Exactly. You're one of the people that gets it.

Yeah, I know. I just want to destroy the myth that the Amish are free from all the sins and vices we find elsewhere. They're drug dealers too.

Amish drug dealers?
The lure of prohibition profits has reached Pennsylvania's closed Amish community. Two young Amish men were recently sentenced to a year in prison and five years probation each for selling meth and cocaine to their peers. This marks the first time that any Amish have faced federal drug charges.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/14/14News.html

Again, they AREN'T drug dealers. They have some drug dealers. Your statements are provably false and make you look hateful and silly.

And no one believes they are free from sins or vices except those that are markedly ignorant of the lives of the Amish.

As religious wing-nuts in widely-ranging fields of work continue to prove, they cannot be relied upon to reasonably carry out their duties. I propose that ethically troublesome forms of employment be exclusively left in the hands of those who are not so hampered by some dusty old book as they cannot or will not render service to those their position entails. No more overtly religious health-care workers.

And if you wanna blame somebody for that eventuality, look to the dumb shit bastards who forced the issue in the first place.

Exactly. You're one of the people that gets it.
::B-Walks::

As religious wing-nuts in widely-ranging fields of work continue to prove, they cannot be relied upon to reasonably carry out their duties. I propose that ethically troublesome forms of employment be exclusively left in the hands of those who are not so hampered by some dusty old book as they cannot or will not render service to those their position entails. No more overtly religious health-care workers.

And if you wanna blame somebody for that eventuality, look to the dumb shit bastards who forced the issue in the first place.

I mostly agree. I think we should simply start penalizing people for refusing treatment to patients in a discriminatory fashion.

Honestly, I have no issue with a pharmacist in Chicago who won't dispense birth control, provided he refer the patients and that another pharmacist is readily available. In fact, I think if you refuse service for any such reason that you should be required to advertise it. However, if you are the only service person in a certain radius I think you either should be required to dispense or you should be required to pay for the person to get to the necessary place to get their medication.

I presume, however, that you would prefer to share a flat with a Sikh than with a Cthulhu worshipper?

What the hell do you have against Cthulhu worship? Huh? HUH?!?

Isn't that in violation of his hypocratic oath?

That's seventeen different ways to retarded and bitchslap-worthy.

Funny, I consider myself a Christian, but no where have I ever seen Christianity forbiding tatoos, in fact I have one on my left arm. :eek:

Leviticus 19:28
KJV: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Wow, what an idiot. The kid had an ear infection, but his parents had tattoos.

Does that mean my doctor could refuse to give me acne meds because my parents don't go to church and that I'm an atheist?

Leviticus 19:28
KJV: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Now, little Bobby, you should not get a tattoo, because I'm your daddy and I said so. Listen to me or I'll ground you forever.

Leviticus 19:28
KJV: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Well done, you can quote Jewish law.

This is appalling. This isn't Christian, it's disgusting and discriminatory. This man should have his liscense revoked, and should probably be taken to court.

Leviticus 19:28
KJV: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Jewish Law... well it means you read the old Testament ...well me too
Think on this if you wish to follow Jewish Law I take it you are circumsized?

Wow, what an idiot. The kid had an ear infection, but his parents had tattoos.

Does that mean my doctor could refuse to give me acne meds because my parents don't go to church and that I'm an atheist?yes. sad but true. now what the doctor cannot do is if you come in and you needed help now or you will DIE, then he cannot refuse to treat you.

the article says he wouldn't treat the ear infection, but that could mean that the child was examined and found to be in a non-life threatening situation.

and as the doctor said...
He said if they don’t like his beliefs, they can find another doctor.


so perhaps the best thing to do is to just find another doctor and try to get his patients to leave him. (perhaps a purpose to the article.)

Jewish Law... well it means you read the old Testament ...well me too
Think on this if you wish to follow Jewish Law I take it you are circumsized?Sarkhaan was answering someone elses question as to where it states tattoos are not allowed in the bibile. it doesn't necessarily mean that Sarkhaan follows those laws.

Ugh thats got to be illegal. If a drunken homeless man walks into the hospital with a broken arm do they turn him away? (Assuming he has money.)

" But these aren't tatoos they are marks that tell the doctors where to give me radiation treatment"

Ugh thats got to be illegal. If a drunken homeless man walks into the hospital with a broken arm do they turn him away? (Assuming he has money.)

" But these aren't tatoos they are marks that tell the doctors where to give me radiation treatment"

Hospitals are different than Private Practices.


Why do they call it Practices anyway... I wanna see someone that isn't just practicing. :p

Now, look. You can't take just one example of a person and use him as a label to all Christians. This so called "doctor" is a disgrace not only to Christians (which I am, I'm an Old Calendar Orthodox Christian, the ORIGINAL, before Catholicism) but to PEOPLE. A doctor is there to heal people. For a friggin doctor to not treat a little kid because her PARENTS had tattoos, that's just disgusting. This doctor is a total loser and deserves to get his license revoked. He gives Christianity a bad name and shouldn't be associated with Christians. That's all there is to it. I'm sick of these NS forums where people are always battering Christians and calling Christianity a false barbaric religion. I'm SICK OF IT. If they knew anything they would know it's completely the opposite. Orthodoxy is the truth, and if you don't believe that then go study some more.

And there's something people tend to not understand. We're human. It's almost impossible for an average ordinary man or woman to follow true Christianity down to the very last detail. It's a plain and simple fact. Some can, and those people choose the life of the monastic; nuns or monks. Most people can't do that, and that's very understandable. People need to stop judging Christianity by the people who follow it. I mean, I'm a Christian, but do I consider myself perfect? Hell no! Do I consider myself instantly saved? No way! Nothing comes in this world without a price. You can't expect things for free. Like in one of my favorite movies, Saving Private Ryan, the captain's last words are, "Earn it." Two simple words. Two words that have some serious meaning. You wanna be saved? You gotta earn it. You wanna make some money? Earn it. Work. You wanna eat? Earn it. Do something.

I'm sorry everybody, I'm rambling. This is just what's on my mind right now. I'm not trying to be eloquent here, I'm writing as I speak. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this doctor is a liar. He calls himself "Christian" and uses it as an excuse to not treat a sick child. He's hiding behind "his" religion which gives it a false name and makes Christianity look bad. And he's not the only one who does that. Thousands of people do things in the name of not only Christianity, but in the name of Islam, in the name of Judaism, whatever their religion may be and consider their actions rationalized by their so called beliefs. They're wrong! And other people like Atheists and Agnostics, and whatever, anyone who doesn't like a specific religion don't seem to understand that, don't seem to grasp that. People are stupid, what can I say? That's just how it is.

I hope this doesn't spark any NS contriversey (however its spelled) and clears up some stuff, cause I'm really tired of reading all of this badmouthing to religion in general going on. It's lame, man. If you read this whole thing, then wow, you're awesome.

He should have his medical license revoked permanently. Also, if the child gets worse, they should look into jail time for some sort of hate crime negligence.

Again,this would have gotten national coverage and immediate results had the asshole been Muslim.

Again,this would have gotten national coverage and immediate results had the asshole been Muslim.

Well, yeah. Or Jewish, or Wicca, or really any religion other than Christian.

This isn't Christian, it's disgusting and discriminatory.

Umm, that's what Christianity is.

Well, yeah. Or Jewish, or Wicca, or really any religion other than Christian.

Not really. Islam is today's Evil Other and thus more alarming to the Sheeple. Just read the thread on Barack Obama just to see Islamaphobia's potency.

It's amazing how one can maintain a 'christian atmosphere' by refusing to help those that Christ would have been the first to help.

This doctor will have to go away. *makes plans*

It's amazing how one can maintain a 'christian atmosphere' by refusing to help those that Christ would have been the first to help.

This doctor will have to go away. *makes plans*

Just leak word that he performs abortions and his own kind will solve the problem.

Wow, what an idiot. The kid had an ear infection, but his parents had tattoos.

Does that mean my doctor could refuse to give me acne meds because my parents don't go to church and that I'm an atheist?

Acne medicine? He would refuse to prescribe live saving medication with disqualifications like that.

It's amazing how one can maintain a 'christian atmosphere' by refusing to help those that Christ would have been the first to help.

This doctor will have to go away. *makes plans*

nah, the patients need to go away...






to another doctor that is.

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08

thats pretty messed up, he should definitely get some sort of punishment.

Just leak word that he performs abortions and his own kind will solve the problem.

Or that he's a major proponent of stem cell research. I think he'd go down quicker and harder for that.

I'd like to see what justification he gets from the bible or any piece of decent christain thinking that tatoos are an unpardonable sin so bad that you can refuse to treat their children.

why did the kid have to "go all night without medicine"? shouldn't the mom find a doctor that will treat her child? if my kid was sick I would get them medicine.

I may not agree with the doctor's actions, but he probably has a right to refuse service. If it was an emergency he probably would have been required to treat the child, but it probably wasn't, evidenced by the mom just going home and leaving the child without medical care all night.

why did the kid have to "go all night without medicine"? shouldn't the mom find a doctor that will treat her child? if my kid was sick I would get them medicine.

I may not agree with the doctor's actions, but he probably has a right to refuse service. If it was an emergency he probably would have been required to treat the child, but it probably wasn't, evidenced by the mom just going home and leaving the child without medical care all night.

Could've been a small town where they're the only doctor's office.

Could've been a small town where they're the only doctor's office.

the town has a population of over 300,000 people, I am sure there is more than one doctor.....

there was no hospital?

Some towns are that small. Yes.

Again,this would have gotten national coverage and immediate results had the asshole been Muslim.

Instead, we're discussing it on an international forum. Go figure.

why did the kid have to "go all night without medicine"? shouldn't the mom find a doctor that will treat her child? if my kid was sick I would get them medicine.

I may not agree with the doctor's actions, but he probably has a right to refuse service. If it was an emergency he probably would have been required to treat the child, but it probably wasn't, evidenced by the mom just going home and leaving the child without medical care all night.

Oh, I suspect that these weren't the parents of the year, Smunkee. Look at their choice of doctors. :p

You're right, of course. Their actions afterward seem to be more concerned with spiting the doctor than caring for their child. Also, a doctor's right to refuse service is often at odds with his oath. There are reasons to refuse service, but moral outrage isn't one of them.

lol, Muslims. Always blowing things up. (oh wait, that's disrespectful and not representative of the whole community, isn't it?)

YAY! :D

lol, Christians. thats pretty messed up, he should definitely get some sort of punishment.

lol, Muslims. Always blowing things up. (oh wait, that's disrespectful and not representative of the whole community, isn't it?)

Instead, we're discussing it on an international forum. Go figure.

Amongst a select group and not the mainstream public. A select group that has little or no clout in the locale of the story.

Some towns are that small. Yes.

this one isn't.

even if it were, if my kid is sick, I am going to do what it takes to get them treatment.

Oh, I suspect that these weren't the parents of the year, Smunkee. Look at their choice of doctors. :p

You're right, of course. Their actions afterward seem to be more concerned with spiting the doctor than caring for their child. Also, a doctor's right to refuse service is often at odds with his oath. There are reasons to refuse service, but moral outrage isn't one of them.

why shouldn't it be? I should have the right to refuse clients, just as much as a doctor is. There are protections, if it's an emergency, or if you are a protected class, but not for tattoos.

lol, Muslims. Always blowing things up. (oh wait, that's disrespectful and not representative of the whole community, isn't it?)

point taken. post edited.

why shouldn't it be? I should have the right to refuse clients, just as much as a doctor is. There are protections, if it's an emergency, or if you are a protected class, but not for tattoos.

If the tattoos were on the kid, you might have a point. The client was the child, not the parents. :p

when I co-owned a restaurant, I kicked out a kid with his mom because she was inappropriately dressed. I don't really see the difference.

Since when do physicians have the right to refuse service?

If the tattoos were on the kid, you might have a point. The client was the child, not the parents. :p

when I co-owned a restaurant, I kicked out a kid with his mom because she was inappropriately dressed. I don't really see the difference.

when I co-owned a restaurant, I kicked out a kid with his mom because she was inappropriately dressed. I don't really see the difference.

The difference is that he's prolonging the pain of a child. An ear infection in a kid can be painful. He deliberately prolonged the child's suffering because her parents chose to get tattoos. Kicking a slut and her kid out of your restaurant doesn't cause anyone unnecessary physical pain unless you're literally kicking them out.

Being a doctor surely you should treat all patients, regardless of background.

this one isn't.

even if it were, if my kid is sick, I am going to do what it takes to get them treatment.

YOu mean you would go get your tatoo removed because all the doctors in the area felt it was justified to kick you out of their office on account of tatoos.

The difference is that he's prolonging the pain of a child. An ear infection in a kid can be painful. He deliberately prolonged the child's suffering because her parents chose to get tattoos. Kicking a slut and her kid out of your restaurant doesn't cause anyone unnecessary physical pain unless you're literally kicking them out.

but......they were hungry.

The kid's physical pain was prolonged because the mom didn't find adequate medical care.

If it were an emergency and the doctor turned them away it would have been different.

btw, my kids take tylenol for pain, it's over the counter. Most ear infections don't require antibiotics.

if your kid is in pain, or sick, it's your job to find medical care.

YOu mean you would go get your tatoo removed because all the doctors in the area felt it was justified to kick you out of their office on account of tatoos.

are all of the doctors in her area opposed to tattoos?

I have a tattoo
:eek: WHAT?:eek:

are all of the doctors in her area opposed to tattoos?

I don't know but it doesn't seem likely.

when I co-owned a restaurant, I kicked out a kid with his mom because she was inappropriately dressed. I don't really see the difference.

*eyes narrow* Is this the real Smunkeeville?

You don't see the difference between kicking a mother and child out of a restaurant because of the improper attire of the mother and a doctor refusing to treat a sick child because of a parent's tattoos?

I do not.
LIAR:mad:

:eek: WHAT?:eek:

I do not.

Woah thats weird my post is quoted of a post that was posted before it was but it isnt accoring to the time stamp:eek:

*eyes narrow* Is this the real Smunkeeville?

You don't see the difference between kicking a mother and child out of a restaurant because of the improper attire of the mother and a doctor refusing to treat a sick child because of a parent's tattoos?
Not if little children are in the resturant or anyone for that matter (my opinion)

are all of the doctors in her area opposed to tattoos?

maybe they are and maybe they talked to the first doctor and he told them how easy it was just to kick tattooed people out of the office because they just go "oh well I guess I can find another doctor" and never bother him again then all the doctors start doing it and you have to run around for 6 hours trying to find a doctor that will diagnose you.

*eyes narrow* Is this the real Smunkeeville?

You don't see the difference between kicking a mother and child out of a restaurant because of the improper attire of the mother and a doctor refusing to treat a sick child because of a parent's tattoos?

not really. If it were an emergency he is required to treat the child, if it's not he has the right to not treat the child.

maybe they are and maybe they talked to the first doctor and he told them how easy it was just to kick tattooed people out of the office because they just go "oh well I guess I can find another doctor" and never bother him again then all the doctors start doing it and you have to run around for 6 hours trying to find a doctor that will diagnose you.

if you are so lazy and stupid to let your sick child go without medical treatment, then I have little pity for you.

not really. If it were an emergency he is required to treat the child, if it's not he has the right to not treat the child.

I don't like you today. I like you most other days, though.

I don't like you today. I like you most other days, though.

I am the same as I am most other days. The doctor has a right to refuse service, she has a right to find another doctor.

In the grand scheme of things it's more her responsibility to find someone to treat the child than it is his to treat her. She has a legal responsibility to provide for the medical care of her child, he doesn't have a legal responsibility to treat her except for emergency conditions.

not really. If it were an emergency he is required to treat the child, if it's not he has the right to not treat the child.

If it is not an emergancy what is the big deal about letting the kid go for one night without treatment. Also, doctors appointments usually must be made days in advance.

if you are so lazy and stupid to let your sick child go without medical treatment, then I have little pity for you.

WTF
Lazy is just doing nothing about an injustice. It is in far better interests of the child and other people's children who have tattoos to go public with your complaint so that children are not made to wait for hours as their parents frantically search for a doctor who will see them.

I am the same as I am most other days. The doctor has a right to refuse service, she has a right to find another doctor.

In the grand scheme of things it's more her responsibility to find someone to treat the child than it is his to treat her. She has a legal responsibility to provide for the medical care of her child, he doesn't have a legal responsibility to treat her except for emergency conditions.

Maybe in the current system. I don't agree with that system.

WTF
Lazy is just doing nothing about an injustice. It is in far better interests of the child and other people's children who have tattoos to go public with your complaint so that children are not made to wait for hours as their parents frantically search for a doctor who will see them.

you said "and then they will give up.....have to spend 6 hours looking for a doctor"

if it's an emergency, then they would have to treat the child. I doubt this was an emergency because of the fact that the mom let the child suffer all night......if it were an emergency perhaps a responsible parent would have sought out another doctor or taken the child to the hospital.

Umm, that's what Christianity is.

Please don't do that. I know you hate religion, especially Christianity, but don't be a complete douche about it.

if you are so lazy and stupid to let your sick child go without medical treatment, then I have little pity for you.

I pity the foo'!

If it is not an emergancy what is the big deal about letting the kid go for one night without treatment. Also, doctors appointments usually must be made days in advance.

you make an appointment for an ear infection and the doctor usually sees you that day, or at least that's my experience with doctors with my kids.

and if it wasn't an emergency then why does she give a fuck if her child had to wait all night? if you guys want me to believe that the child was in desperate need for immediate medical care, then maybe the mom, you know the legally responsible party, might have thought to get some.

you said "and then they will give up.....have to spend 6 hours looking for a doctor"

if it's an emergency, then they would have to treat the child. I doubt this was an emergency because of the fact that the mom let the child suffer all night......if it were an emergency perhaps a responsible parent would have sought out another doctor or taken the child to the hospital.

You make just as little sense as I do. Since it wasnt an EMERGGANCAESY why were they being irresponsible?

I'd say they were being more responsible because they were protecting future patients from being turned away when their situation is dire.

you think that doctors should have to treat anyone who comes in their door? no matter what?

Yes. Unless the doctor doesn't feel he is qualified or is somehow abused by the patient.

not really. If it were an emergency he is required to treat the child, if it's not he has the right to not treat the child.

I suppose the doctor is rather lucky then. Not all emergencies seem like emergencies. Had that child died an hour later because something life threatening that would have been revealed in a cursory examination, he'd be on the front page of USA Today. Or in jail.

Maybe in the current system. I don't agree with that system.

you think that doctors should have to treat anyone who comes in their door? no matter what?

you think that doctors should have to treat anyone who comes in their door? no matter what?

Well not if he's all dirty or sneezing or bleeding or coughing. You could end up getting sick treating someone like that.

you think that doctors should have to treat anyone who comes in their door? no matter what?

Most people do....

I pity the foo'!
Thats in jail?







EDIT:Aaaaaaah 666!

you said "and then they will give up.....have to spend 6 hours looking for a doctor"

if it's an emergency, then they would have to treat the child. I doubt this was an emergency because of the fact that the mom let the child suffer all night......if it were an emergency perhaps a responsible parent would have sought out another doctor or taken the child to the hospital.

But if it were an EMERGENCY, they shouldn't NEED to look for another doctor. ;)

You make just as little sense as I do. Since it wasnt an EMERGGANCAESY why were they being irresponsible?
if it wasn't an emergency then the doctor did nothing legally wrong.

I'd say they were being more responsible because they were protecting future patients from being turned away when their situation is dire.
this situation wasn't "dire", how would they know what he would do if the situation was?


Yes. Unless the doctor doesn't feel he is qualified or is somehow abused by the patient.
what about other professions? should they have to serve everyone too?

Acne medicine? He would refuse to prescribe live saving medication with disqualifications like that.

He'd probably refuse to give me even ADD meds under those qualifications, though an arse like him would probably think ADD was a load of crap anyway.

I have a friend who is a doctor, he ended his treatment relationship with a patient because the patient didn't follow the doctor's instructions, if that patient shows back up at his office, he doesn't have to treat him, unless it's an emergency. I am fine with that.

Me too.

Well not if he's all dirty or sneezing or bleeding or coughing. You could end up getting sick treating someone like that.

I have a friend who is a doctor, he ended his treatment relationship with a patient because the patient didn't follow the doctor's instructions, if that patient shows back up at his office, he doesn't have to treat him, unless it's an emergency. I am fine with that.

what about other professions? should they have to serve everyone too?

Depends on the profession. Firemen: Yes. Policeman: Yes. Doctor: Yes. Shoe shine boy: No. Restaurant owner: No. Prostitute: Oh...oh... oh... yes! YES! YES! Car salesman: No.

But if it were an EMERGENCY, they shouldn't NEED to look for another doctor. ;)

yes, and if it were an emergency and he still turned them away then why did she wait overnight to find another doctor.

either it was an emergency and the doctor was wrong, and the mom is irresponsible or it was not an emergency and the doctor wasn't wrong, and the mom is being a bitch.

pick one.

Most people do....

I don't.

yes, and if it were an emergency and he still turned them away then why did she wait overnight to find another doctor.

either it was an emergency and the doctor was wrong, and the mom is irresponsible or it was not an emergency and the doctor wasn't wrong, and the mom is being a bitch.

pick one.

I do think the mom was being a bitch and was wrong for not taking the kid to another doctor immediately.

firemen and police men are usually called out in emergencies, doctors also have to treat in emergencies.

in a non-emergency situation doctors do not have to treat.

Does that mean in a non-emergency situation a police man doesn't have to acknowledge you?

yes, and if it were an emergency and he still turned them away then why did she wait overnight to find another doctor.

either it was an emergency and the doctor was wrong, and the mom is irresponsible or it was not an emergency and the doctor wasn't wrong, and the mom is being a bitch.

pick one.

If a doctor turned your child away since he didn't think it was an emergency, why would you need to seek out another doctor? If you can't trust a doctor to judge a medical emergency, who can you trust?

I don't.

The kid had an ear infection, she doesn't deserve to not be treated because her parents have tattoos. It doesn't matter if it was an emergency, ear infections are pretty painful but ear pain does not necessarily equal ear infection, so the mom might not have been irresonsible by not taking her to the doctor right away.

And the doctor is an idiot anyway.

Depends on the profession. Firemen: Yes. Policeman: Yes. Doctor: Yes. Shoe shine boy: No. Restaurant owner: No. Prostitute: Oh...oh... oh... yes! YES! YES! Car salesman: No.

firemen and police men are usually called out in emergencies, doctors also have to treat in emergencies.

in a non-emergency situation doctors do not have to treat.

I do think the mom was being a bitch and was wrong for not taking the kid to another doctor immediately.

well, then we can agree on that.

I do think the mom was being a bitch and was wrong for not taking the kid to another doctor immediately.

Why? It wasn't an emergency. If it was, the doctor would have treated the child. Wouldn't he?

Please don't do that. I know you hate religion, especially Christianity, but don't be a complete douche about it.

It is not in my character to sugar coat the truth. Christianity overall is not accepting or tolerant, but is very discriminatory indeed, and any claims to the contrary are just plain old silly.

As far as I'm concerned, people in the business of providing medical attention have as much ability as any business person to exercise the 'right to refuse service'; however, I personally believe that the only time when businesspeople should be able to use said right is when the client is being verbally abusive, or worse.

With that in mind, until that time, I don't believe that any health professional should have a right to refuse service for any reason. Keeping in mind that the USA doesn't have national healthcare, I'd be willing to allow 'inability to pay' as a reason.

Regardless of my personal opinions, that doctor not treating the child is disobeying his Hippocratic Oath.

Going back into personal opinion time, if he'd put his own personal morals above the oath he made the day he became a physician, he should have his medical licence stripped from him because that oath is supposed to be supreme in the minds of physicians, even more supreme than that of God.

Does that mean in a non-emergency situation a police man doesn't have to acknowledge you?

Dude, in an emergency situation a policeman doesn't have to acknowledge you.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Why? It wasn't an emergency. If it was, the doctor would have treated the child. Wouldn't he?

If I'm going to complain about a doctor not treating my child, I'm going to find out immediately from another doctor if my child is treatable and if there isn't any additional problems. I guess the idea being my concern would be first on the treatment of the child and then on complaining about the doctor.

firemen and police men are usually called out in emergencies, doctors also have to treat in emergencies.

in a non-emergency situation doctors do not have to treat.

If I gopt a job that required a criminal record check and I went to the police station and asked for one and they said no because I had tatooes I would be upset. I could go to the police station in the next town and get it but why on earth should I have to? Tattooes????? WTH? That is just dumb. I'm sorry you have hoop earings go away, those shoes don't match that skirt, is that a braclet with blunt plastic spikes? We don't serve your kind here, this is a Christian atmosphere.

It is not in my character to sugar coat the truth. Christianity overall is not accepting or tolerant, but is very discriminatory indeed, and any claims to the contrary are just plain old silly.

That's a failing of the people, not the religion.

It is not in my character to sugar coat the truth. Christianity overall is not accepting or tolerant, but is very discriminatory indeed, and any claims to the contrary are just plain old silly.

Fass, that's like saying that all gay men are rampaging hedonists who will put out for complete strangers.

Simply because it's true of the majority doesn't make it true for all.

I personally know Christians that will find their home with Jesus eventually, even if I don't believe that it exists.

If I'm going to complain about a doctor not treating my child, I'm going to find out immediately from another doctor if my child is treatable and if there isn't any additional problems. I guess the idea being my concern would be first on the treatment of the child and then on complaining about the doctor.

Mine too. But most people trust doctors' judgement unquestioningly, forgetting that most doctors are not much smarter than anyone else. :p

That's a failing of the people, not the religion.

Oh, no, they're not failing at all. They're fulfilling what Christianity is all about.

The kid had an ear infection, she doesn't deserve to not be treated because her parents have tattoos. It doesn't matter if it was an emergency, ear infections are pretty painful but ear pain does not necessarily equal ear infection, so the mom might not have been irresonsible by not taking her to the doctor right away.

And the doctor is an idiot anyway.

what the kid deserves is a mother that will seek out appropriate medical care.

what the doctor did was within his rights.

what the kid deserves is a mother that will seek out appropriate medical care.

what the doctor did was within his rights.

I agree, Smunkee. Someone who should have their medical licence pulled seems to be incapable of providing appropriate medical care.

So, as long as we agree that the doctor should have his licence pulled, then we can give the mother partial responsibility.

Fass, that's like saying that all gay men are rampaging hedonists who will put out for complete strangers.

I wish they were, but your analogy is flawed since a religion is incomparable to a sexual orientation.

Simply because it's true of the majority doesn't make it true for all.

Which part of "overall" did you not understand?

I personally know Christians that will find their home with Jesus eventually, even if I don't believe that it exists.

Ah, yes, the old "let's excuse the putrid rule by finding an uncommon exception".

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08
Tattoo's aren't entirely unchristian.
*Dickhead of the week award*

what the kid deserves is a mother that will seek out appropriate medical care.

what the doctor did was within his rights.
Kids cry about pain all the time you cant go to the doctor for everylittle thing. And what a great place we would be in if everyone excercised their right to be an asshole.

If I gopt a job that required a criminal record check and I went to the police station and asked for one and they said no because I had tatooes I would be upset. I could go to the police station in the next town and get it but why on earth should I have to? Tattooes????? WTH? That is just dumb. I'm sorry you have hoop earings go away, those shoes don't match that skirt, is that a braclet with blunt plastic spikes? We don't serve your kind here, this is a Christian atmosphere.

believe it or not "having tats" is not a protected class.




I agree, Smunkee. Someone who should have their medical licence pulled seems to be incapable of providing appropriate medical care.

So, as long as we agree that the doctor should have his licence pulled, then we can give the mother partial responsibility.

why would they pull his license? he didn't break the law.

what the kid deserves is a mother that will seek out appropriate medical care.

what the doctor did was within his rights.

He may have been within his rights, but it's still amusing that his Christian inspired standards led to act in a thoroughly un-Christian manner.

Oh, no, they're not failing at all. They're fulfilling what Christianity is all about.

And once again you're completely wrong.

Let me use an example to illustrate. If you've ever played DnD, think of the Paladin class. People are always misinterpreting what it's about and playing the Paladin as intolerant, holier-than-thou bigots. But that's not what the class is about, and when you get someone who actually knows how to play the class, well then even if you don't want to play that class yourself, you kind of get an idea on what it's supposed to be.

Kids cry about pain all the time you cant go to the doctor for everylittle thing. And what a great place we would be in if everyone excercised their right to be an asshole.

my point is that it was ultimately her fault that the kid "spent all night without medication" not the doctor's.

I have no patience for people who will not take responsibility for their own actions.

why would they pull his license? he didn't break the law.

Professional ethics have nothing to do with the law. There are tonnes of legal things one could do and still have one's licence revoked.

In this case the infraction is not serious enough (unless it is shown to be of a serial nature) to warrant a revocation, but a reprimand would be very much in order.

He may have been within his rights, but it's still amusing that his Christian inspired standards led to act in a thoroughly un-Christian manner.
I agree ;)

He may have been within his rights, but it's still amusing that his Christian inspired standards led to act in a thoroughly un-Christian manner.

I am of the opinion that he did a very Christian thing. There's nothing "un-Christian" about discrimination - as most who've been subject to it can attest.

Professional ethics have nothing to do with the law. There are tonnes of legal things one could do and still have one's licence revoked.

In this case the infraction is not serious enough (unless it is shown to be of a serial nature) to warrant a revocation, but a reprimand would be very much in order.

:) okay. I henceforth take this position.

believe it or not "having tats" is not a protected class.
Jesus I never would have thought that. Well there goes my whole arguement.

Seriously 1. The doctor deemed the childs condition non-life-threatening and the mother knew it would be OK to see another doctor tommarrow. Thus, did nothing wrong
2. The doctor did not know whether the condition was life threatening or not and thus broke the law.

I am of the opinion that he did a very Christian thing. There's nothing "un-Christian" about discrimination - as most who've been subject to it can attest.

You know who would never do the christian thing? Christ. ;)

You know who would never do the christian thing? Christ. ;)

He was a Jew. Why would he do the Christian thing?

Professional ethics have nothing to do with the law. There are tonnes of legal things one could do and still have one's licence revoked.

In this case the infraction is not serious enough (unless it is shown to be of a serial nature) to warrant a revocation, but a reprimand would be very much in order.

Exactly right.

People often seem to confuse "it was his right to do X" with "he was right to do X."

This doctor has a right to his prejudices and we have a right to say he is wrong.

And once again you're completely wrong.

Let me use an example to illustrate. If you've ever played DnD, think of the Paladin class. People are always misinterpreting what it's about and playing the Paladin as intolerant, holier-than-thou bigots. But that's not what the class is about, and when you get someone who actually knows how to play the class, well then even if you don't want to play that class yourself, you kind of get an idea on what it's supposed to be.

Ah, so you are now the sole arbiter of what is or is not Christian - that you define "what I agree with = Christian, what I don't agree with = un-Christian"? Sorry, I don't buy your authority.

Jesus I never would have thought that. Well there goes my whole arguement.

Seriously 1. The doctor deemed the childs condition non-life-threatening and the mother knew it would be OK to see another doctor tommarrow. Thus, did nothing wrong
2. The doctor did not know whether the condition was life threatening or not and thus broke the law.

Ear infections are generally not life-threatening...

He was a Jew. Why would he do the Christian thing?

http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/touche2.wav

:)

Ah, so you are now the sole arbiter of what is or is not Christian - that you define "what I agree with = Christian, what I don't agree with = un-Christian"? Sorry, I don't buy your authority.

Nor do I buy yours. It would seem then, that we are at an impasse.

You know who would never do the christian thing? Christ. ;)

It's amazing how many Christians loathe long-haired hippies who roam around and preach on street corners, yet still drool over Jesus as their Saviour. :p

And once again you're completely wrong.

Let me use an example to illustrate. If you've ever played DnD, think of the Paladin class. People are always misinterpreting what it's about and playing the Paladin as intolerant, holier-than-thou bigots. But that's not what the class is about, and when you get someone who actually knows how to play the class, well then even if you don't want to play that class yourself, you kind of get an idea on what it's supposed to be.

If you have to use DnD as an example, then your argument isn't worth making.

The doctor did not see him. It was a diff. doc who diagnosed.

Yes, but everyone keeps saying that the condition ws life-threatening, when ear infections are rarely life threatening. I've had tons of ear infections without seeing doctors, I'm still alive. Jeesh.

Ear infections are generally not life-threatening...

The doctor did not see him. It was a diff. doc who diagnosed.

http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/sounds/touche2.wav

:)

Heh, Tom and Jerry rock.

Christ, is Smunkee sick/PMSing/hungover/drunk/something? She's usually pretty nice, but today...

why would they pull his license? he didn't break the law.
I'm sure there are some ethics violations a medical board would like to hear.

If you have to use DnD as an example, then your argument isn't worth making.

It was just the first one that came to mind.

Being a doctor surely you should treat all patients, regardless of background.only if it's an emergency.

If a doctor turned your child away since he didn't think it was an emergency, why would you need to seek out another doctor? If you can't trust a doctor to judge a medical emergency, who can you trust?it's called a second opinion. also emergency rooms are there to also make that diagnosis.

If I got a job that required a criminal record check and I went to the police station and asked for one and they said no because I had tatooes I would be upset. I could go to the police station in the next town and get it but why on earth should I have to? Tattooes????? WTH? That is just dumb. I'm sorry you have hoop earings go away, those shoes don't match that skirt, is that a braclet with blunt plastic spikes? We don't serve your kind here, this is a Christian atmosphere.simple, you do NOT go to the police station for a criminal record check. had they provided you with one, they would be liable for distributing private information.

Professional ethics have nothing to do with the law. There are tonnes of legal things one could do and still have one's licence revoked.

In this case the infraction is not serious enough (unless it is shown to be of a serial nature) to warrant a revocation, but a reprimand would be very much in order.wow... another time I agree with Fass... :cool:

If you have to use DnD as an example, then your argument isn't worth making.people use what they know. can't fault him for that Cat tribe.

The doctor did not see him. It was a diff. doc who diagnosed.can you show me where this was said? I think I missed it.

simple, you do NOT go to the police station for a criminal record check. had they provided you with one, they would be liable for distributing private information.

can you show me where this was said? I think I missed it.

ew multi quotes gross! yes you do go to police station and they ask for ID(In my countly).
It only seems logical that if they got kicked out the doctor never looked at the kid.

Christ, is Smunkee sick/PMSing/hungover/drunk/something? She's usually pretty nice, but today...

... yeah... she's ZESTY today!!! :D

You know who would never do the christian thing? Christ. ;)

Well, he wasn't written to be a Christian character, now was he? But you know who was very Christian? Paul. And this sort of behaviour is right up his alley.

... yeah... she's ZESTY today!!! :D

She seems no more or less "zesty" today than any other day. :rolleyes:

Nor do I buy yours. It would seem then, that we are at an impasse.

No biggy, I have two millennia of Christianity to speak my point for me. You - you have a (very sad) DnD allegory.

... yeah... she's ZESTY today!!! :D

I haven't noticed a difference in her comportment, honestly.

Let me use an example to illustrate. If you've ever played DnD, think of the Paladin class. People are always misinterpreting what it's about and playing the Paladin as intolerant, holier-than-thou bigots. But that's not what the class is about, and when you get someone who actually knows how to play the class, well then even if you don't want to play that class yourself, you kind of get an idea on what it's supposed to be.

Only D&D lawful good and the traditional requirements of "Christian morality" are not at all the same thing.

ITT:
People judge all Christians by this idiots actions, because one individual reflects exactly what the other two billion people in that religion think.

EDIT:
Although it doesnt seem as bad in this thread as it was in some others >_>

ew multi quotes gross! yes you do go to police station and they ask for ID(In my countly).
It only seems logical that if they got kicked out the doctor never looked at the kid.

logical... but not necessarily. the doctor could've done a cursory examination to insure that it was an ear infection and nothing more serious. then calmly informed the parents of his "no Tat" policy.

doesn't explain this tho...
17 News found other patients who had a different experience with Merrill.

“I have tattoos, actually, and no, nothing’s ever been said about it,” Brandi Stanley said, Merrill’s patient.

so unless it's something else or something about the tat itself... *shrugs*

I agree ;)

It's ironic
like:
http://gallery.spacebar.org/images/recon_feb05/rust-oleum.jpg

She seems no more or less "zesty" today than any other day. :rolleyes:

I haven't noticed a difference in her comportment, honestly.

she's been... (can't think of an appropriate word... adamant, I guess would fit) before, I'm just saying I like this side of her also.

*Zen Huggles to Smunkee*

I haven't noticed a difference in her comportment, honestly.

I haven't either......but then again, how would I really know?

she's been... (can't think of an appropriate word... adamant, I guess would fit) before, I'm just saying I like this side of her also.

*Zen Huggles to Smunkee*

Eeuw.

I haven't either......but then again, how would I really know?

By allowing others to describe and define your character for you.

By allowing others to describe and define your character for you.
I would suppose that you would be the most unbiased around to describe my character for me, after all, you don't care enough to have an opinion of me one way or the other. ;)

In this case the infraction is not serious enough (unless it is shown to be of a serial nature) to warrant a revocation, but a reprimand would be very much in order.

People may be astounded to hear that this doctor acted entirely within his legal and professional rights.

A (vaguely) similar case cropped up in the UK recently when a pharmacist refused to give a woman the morning after pill, claiming it was a form of abortion. There was nothing anyone could do to sack or even reprimand him. I must say, pharmacist seems an odd choice of profession for someone who doesn't approve of contraception.

I would suppose that you would be the most unbiased around to describe my character for me, after all, you don't care enough to have an opinion of me one way or the other. ;)

If it's any consolation, I care even less than Fass.

People may be astounded to hear that this doctor acted entirely within his legal and professional rights.

That is a national matter. In Sweden he would be doubtlessly reprimanded, especially since the third person affected was a child.

I am of the opinion that he did a very Christian thing. There's nothing "un-Christian" about discrimination - as most who've been subject to it can attest.

Yep. In fact the more stridently old school christian they are, theres greater odds they do indeed discriminate. For Jesus of course.

If it's any consolation, I care even less than Fass.

which is probably why you don't notice this "difference" everyone is talking about.

I would suppose that you would be the most unbiased around to describe my character for me, after all, you don't care enough to have an opinion of me one way or the other. ;)

The crux of the matter being that that leaves me incapable of utterance. I will say this, though: I don't particularly mind you, even if you do have some strangely antiquated ideas about your place as a woman in the world.

which is probably why you don't notice this "difference" everyone is talking about.

Just a surprise on your stance. Once things got talked out a bit, I recognized the Smunkee I know and love. :fluffle:

That is a national matter. In Sweden he would be doubtlessly reprimanded, especially since the third person affected was a child.

Yes, there might be a number of countries where that's the case. But the US is not one of them.

Christ, is Smunkee sick/PMSing/hungover/drunk/something? She's usually pretty nice, but today...

Today, you're just noticing.

Yes, there might be a number of countries where that's the case. But the US is not one of them.

The USA's peculiar social atmosphere has not eluded me.

The USA's peculiar social atmosphere has not eluded me.

Although I've managed to elude it rather to my liking...

Although I've managed to elude it rather to my liking...

Kudos.

Jewish Law... well it means you read the old Testament ...well me too
Think on this if you wish to follow Jewish Law I take it you are circumsized?
Yes. Yes I am. Although, I don't particularly subscribe to the rules of any religion. I am, however, circumcized, and have been Bar Mitzvahed.
Well done, you can quote Jewish law.
the signifigant portion of Jewish law that deals with tattoos. Actually, I used the KJV specifically because it was translated before the creation of the word "tattoo". Marks, today, is often translated directly to tattoo.

It's ironic
like:
[img]http://gallery.spacebar.org/images/recon_feb05/rust-oleum.jpg[img]

Shop, pixles, etc.

believe it or not "having tats" is not a protected class.

Practicaly what is the difference between refusing someone treatment because their parents are black and refusing treatment because their parents have a tatoo?

In both cases you are punishing someone based on their parents. In both cases you are punishig someone based on prejudice.

Although one might be illegal because of a limited set of 'protected classses' the morality of the situation is exactly the same and the suffering caused is equal.

The statement many people hvae been saying is not "Can he be struck off" but "He should be struck off" for refusing treatment of non-medical grounds.

Someones opinion of 'should' does not have to have backing by law - they can be of the opinion that the law should be different.

Practicaly what is the difference between refusing someone treatment because their parents are black and refusing treatment because their parents have a tatoo?

In both cases you are punishing someone based on their parents. In both cases you are punishig someone based on prejudice.

Although one might be illegal because of a limited set of 'protected classses' the morality of the situation is exactly the same and the suffering caused is equal.

The statement many people hvae been saying is not "Can he be struck off" but "He should be struck off" for refusing treatment of non-medical grounds.

Someones opinion of 'should' does not have to have backing by law - they can be of the opinion that the law should be different.

Well said Sir.

Practicaly what is the difference between refusing someone treatment because their parents are black and refusing treatment because their parents have a tatoo?

In both cases you are punishing someone based on their parents. In both cases you are punishig someone based on prejudice.

Although one might be illegal because of a limited set of 'protected classses' the morality of the situation is exactly the same and the suffering caused is equal.

The statement many people hvae been saying is not "Can he be struck off" but "He should be struck off" for refusing treatment of non-medical grounds.

Someones opinion of 'should' does not have to have backing by law - they can be of the opinion that the law should be different.

you are confusing laws and morality, you want to force your morality on someone else by use of the law.

it may have been morally wrong for him to turn the child away, however it was his legal right.

I don't confuse laws and morality, there are many things I find immoral that I don't think should be illegal. I am not interested in anyone who wants to force their morality on me, therefore I don't try to force my morality on others.

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08

If this doctor wants to maintain a Christian atmosphere in his office that's his right. In fact I think the state should applaud and even support his efforts. By nailing him to a big piece of lumber, beating him half to death, and feeding him to a lion.

you are confusing laws and morality, you want to force your morality on someone else by use of the law.

it may have been morally wrong for him to turn the child away, however it was his legal right.

I don't confuse laws and morality, there are many things I find immoral that I don't think should be illegal. I am not interested in anyone who wants to force their morality on me, therefore I don't try to force my morality on others.


Yet you already stated that you removed somebody from a resturaunt because, according to you, they were 'inappropriately dressed'. Now unless they were covered in pig shit and untanned hides, I'd say that was a moral judgement, and by ejecting them you forced your idea of whats right and wrong on them.

you are confusing laws and morality, you want to force your morality on someone else by use of the law.

it may have been morally wrong for him to turn the child away, however it was his legal right.

I don't confuse laws and morality, there are many things I find immoral that I don't think should be illegal. I am not interested in anyone who wants to force their morality on me, therefore I don't try to force my morality on others.

His legal right, yes. But doctors have obligations higher than the laws that regulate commerce. What he did was unethical. He shouldn't go to jail, but he should lose his license.

you are confusing laws and morality, you want to force your morality on someone else by use of the law.

it may have been morally wrong for him to turn the child away, however it was his legal right.

I don't confuse laws and morality, there are many things I find immoral that I don't think should be illegal. I am not interested in anyone who wants to force their morality on me, therefore I don't try to force my morality on others.

However, in this case, this person forced their morality on others. There is no evidence that this doctor ensured the safety of this child PRIOR to refusing service. These situations, situations where doctors and pharmacists play consciencious objector, are creating a dangerous problem in our society.

Me: "Please, please, my child is burning up in a fire."
Firefighter: "Fill out this form so I can ensure I agree with your positions on things. Wait, you're a smoker. I don't like smokers. You'll have to ask that firefighter over there."

Where's the line here, Smunkee, because no one is drawing it. On what basis can I refuse service, when I'm in a position to literally hold the lives of my customers in my hands? Doctors, police, firefights, nurses, pharmacists and, yes, even front-line soldiers must, must, be screened in order to ensure that at critical times we won't be left without the necessary support these individuals provide. We don't put consciencious objectors on the front lines in the military. It would be folly. Why would we put these doctors on the front-line. They're screaming loud and clear that they don't want to be there. I say grant them their wish.

Yet you already stated that you removed somebody from a resturaunt because, according to you, they were 'inappropriately dressed'. Now unless they were covered in pig shit and untanned hides, I'd say that was a moral judgement, and by ejecting them you forced your idea of whats right and wrong on them.

I didn't vote for a law to do so.

you are confusing my rights, with the law.......again.

I didn't force my morality on them, I used my legal right to ask them to leave my restaurant.

Yet you already stated that you removed somebody from a resturaunt because, according to you, they were 'inappropriately dressed'. Now unless they were covered in pig shit and untanned hides, I'd say that was a moral judgement, and by ejecting them you forced your idea of whats right and wrong on them.

Well, that's different. The restaurant is owned privately and there really is no obligation, moral or otherwise, to serve people. It's like claiming she forced her morality on someone by asking them to leave her home or stop swearing. Refusing to feed someone in a private establishment, and refusing to give someone who may or may not have suffered irreparably damage medical care are not comparable on any level.

However, in this case, this person forced their morality on others. There is no evidence that this doctor ensured the safety of this child PRIOR to refusing service. These situations, situations where doctors and pharmacists play consciencious objector, are creating a dangerous problem in our society.

Me: "Please, please, my child is burning up in a fire."
Firefighter: "Fill out this form so I can ensure I agree with your positions on things. Wait, you're a smoker. I don't like smokers. You'll have to ask that firefighter over there."

Where's the line here, Smunkee, because no one is drawing it. On what basis can I refuse service, when I'm in a position to literally hold the lives of my customers in my hands? Doctors, police, firefights, nurses, pharmacists and, yes, even front-line soldiers must, must, be screened in order to ensure that at critical times we won't be left without the necessary support these individuals provide. We don't put consciencious objectors on the front lines in the military. It would be folly. Why would we put these doctors on the front-line. They're screaming loud and clear that they don't want to be there. I say grant them their wish.

The law draws the line, if it were an emergency he would have to treat the child.

I don't necessarily agree with what he did, but I support his right to do so.

You know kinda like I think it's morally reprehensive to get an abortion, but I am pro-choice?

I didn't vote for a law to do so.

you are confusing my rights, with the law.......again.

I didn't force my morality on them, I used my legal right to ask them to leave my restaurant.

You're actually being quite consistent on this front. The doctor's office is also a privately-owned organization. You believe that when something is privately-owned you can refuse service for any reason and it should not be penalized through law or loss of license, no?

However, I think you should consider the consequences of such a claim. Many or even most hospitals are privately owned. Should they be able to refuse you service because you are Christian and potentially risk your life?

Yet you already stated that you removed somebody from a resturaunt because, according to you, they were 'inappropriately dressed'. Now unless they were covered in pig shit and untanned hides, I'd say that was a moral judgement, and by ejecting them you forced your idea of whats right and wrong on them.

Not really. Lots of establishments have dress codes. If I go to a swing jazz club they expect me to wear Zoot Suit, or at least a regular suit. If I go to an S&M club they expect me to wear fetish gear, or at least tight black pants. If you're just a convenience store that sells fast food, you still might loose business if people don't honor the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.

For entertainment and luxury venues, dress codes are the order of the day because they contribute to the atmosphere that the establishment is trying to create. I've seen more than one goth club go out of business because they became popular with people in baggy blue jeans and sweaters from The Gap.

But doctor's offices aren't resteraunts or nightclubs. You go there to be treated for illness and injury, not to rub elbows with your favored peer group. The atmosphere a doctors office should create should be one that says "are you sick or hurt? I will help you." Not "don't worry. You won't have to see those people here." If anyone chooses not to go to a doctor because they might meet a black person, a biker, or an old man, then they deserve to stay sick.

The law draws the line, if it were an emergency he would have to treat the child.

He had no idea if it was an emergency. And the laws don't draw the line. The AMA does, in fact.

However, ask yourself if you think that we should have to interview emergency personnel before deciding where we'll go or who we'll call in order to ensure we'll get service. Is this a world you support?

We can't logically have emergency support personnel for every ideology possible in every area possible. These people hold lives. And because of it, like soldiers or public servants they MUST put their beliefs aside or let down their weapon. It's really that simple.

I don't necessarily agree with what he did, but I support his right to do so.

You know kinda like I think it's morally reprehensive to get an abortion, but I am pro-choice?

However, in this case, he is in a position to put people who also have rights lives at risk. We formed a medical infrastructure in this country that is supported by our government for obvious reasons. It's necessary. That infrastructure and its members have an obligation to protect us regardless of religion, race, creed, sex or sexuality. If this doctor doesn't want to meet that obligation then he is welcome to find another profession.

You keep saying he has a right. What right is it that he excercised?

You're actually being quite consistent on this front. The doctor's office is also a privately-owned organization. You believe that when something is privately-owned you can refuse service for any reason and it should not be penalized through law or loss of license, no?

However, I think you should consider the consequences of such a claim. Many or even most hospitals are privately owned. Should they be able to refuse you service because you are Christian and potentially risk your life?

No man is an island.

Yes, they're privatly owned and have the right to make their own business decisions. But they are lisenced by the government and must uphold certain standards.

If I own a restaurant I am not entitled to serve any food I want. Dog burgers topped with a urine reduction sauce might be sanitary, but it's still gross and I'd have my business shut down for serving it.

Medical professionals have a similar, though from the other side, stricture. They must provide services they might find objectionable. Its the price they pay for being lisenced by the state to have such a lucrative job. If the government were to simply take it's hands off we'd go back to the days where anyone could boil some weeds and say it would cure everything. By honoring the obligations placed on his profession he gets to make a lot of money. That's the deal. Dishonor the deal, loose the deal.

Yes, but everyone keeps saying that the condition ws life-threatening, when ear infections are rarely life threatening. I've had tons of ear infections without seeing doctors, I'm still alive. Jeesh.

You would agree, though, that it is extremely painful and that the "Christian" thing would have been to treat and comfort the child?

After all, a broken arm is generally not life threatening, but we do expect it to be sufficiently painful that a doctor should set it unless there is an overwhelming reason not to?

The law draws the line, if it were an emergency he would have to treat the child.

I don't necessarily agree with what he did, but I support his right to do so.

You know kinda like I think it's morally reprehensive to get an abortion, but I am pro-choice?

He is a doctor, he shouldn't be able to pick and choose who he treats. The bastard should be sued by these parents and hopefully he will be gutted. Prejudice has no place in the world and he should pay heavily for forcing his own "morality" on others. What if the kid had a more serious condition that further examination could have discovered? Doctors have no right to refuse to treat patients. If his licence isn't revoked I'd consider it a shame. If this guy was a true "Christian" he would have ignored the parents and treated the sick child anyway. The man is a hypocrite.

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08

amazing....I heard a blurb about this on the news last night, but never got to hear the meat of the story.... what a quack..

No man is an island.

Yes, they're privatly owned and have the right to make their own business decisions. But they are lisenced by the government and must uphold certain standards.

If I own a restaurant I am not entitled to serve any food I want. Dog burgers topped with a urine reduction sauce might be sanitary, but it's still gross and I'd have my business shut down for serving it.

You are entitled to refuse service. By law and within your license. You can refuse service to anyone. It's not comparible. Last I checked, no one ever died from such a thing and the government has never done anything to ensure there is an adequate number of restaurants in any particular area. Medical personnel is VERY different and there is basically no comparison.

In a restaurant, you are entitled to serve any food you could legally serve in your home. It has nothing to do with your license. Dog burgers with urine reduction would also be illegal in your home. It's a stupid comparison.

Medical professionals have a similar, though from the other side, stricture. They must provide services they might find objectionable. Its the price they pay for being lisenced by the state to have such a lucrative job. If the government were to simply take it's hands off we'd go back to the days where anyone could boil some weeds and say it would cure everything. By honoring the obligations placed on his profession he gets to make a lot of money. That's the deal. Dishonor the deal, loose the deal.

Medical jobs are not necessarily lucrative. The money they make has NOTHING to do with their obligation. None. Their obligation has to do with the potential effect of refusing service. They have a similar obligation as firefighters and police and those professions are in a completely different financial bracket, but with a similar potential for harm by inaction.

I didn't vote for a law to do so.

you are confusing my rights, with the law.......again.

I didn't force my morality on them, I used my legal right to ask them to leave my restaurant.

That seems to be rather fuzzy, given that your decision to exercise your right was based on your personal disapproval.

I generally agree with you but here seems to be the same logic as "I was just following orders".

That seems to be rather fuzzy, given that your decision to exercise your right was based on your personal disapproval.
and I have the right to do so.... which is my point.

nobody has to agree with every single opinion I ever have. (except maybe my husband ;))

I generally agree with you but here seems to be the same logic as "I was just following orders".
this I don't get.... can you explain?

and I have the right to do so.... which is my point.

nobody has to agree with every single opinion I ever have. (except maybe my husband ;))


this I don't get.... can you explain?

We're talking about how morally, we think it is reprehensible that he chose not to provide treatment to a child in pain because he did not approve of the parents. You said correctly that it is his right, that he can turn others away.

You compared it to your own experience of turning away a potential customer and saying that you were within your right to turn her away for what you found to be a moral reasons, although you were "not enforcing" your morality on her.

It strikes me as being in feel like "Yes, I know what I did was wrong, but I did it because my boss said to." In other words, it seems like trying to avoid censure for the action by abdicating responsibility for the action.

You are entitled to refuse service. By law and within your license. You can refuse service to anyone. It's not comparible. Last I checked, no one ever died from such a thing and the government has never done anything to ensure there is an adequate number of restaurants in any particular area. Medical personnel is VERY different and there is basically no comparison.

In a restaurant, you are entitled to serve any food you could legally serve in your home. It has nothing to do with your license. Dog burgers with urine reduction would also be illegal in your home. It's a stupid comparison.

There is no law against boiling urine down and drinking it. It is also perfectly healthy. From a chemical perspective it is truly not very different from gatorade. But I would still not be allowed to serve it in a resteraunt.

You also seem to be missing my point. If I leave food all over my kitchen, have a dirty stove, or even a cockroach infestation, I can still cook and serve food in it. I can't do that in a resteraunt kitchen. In getting permission to run a restaurant I must maintain certain standards that ameteur cooks don't.

Medical jobs are not necessarily lucrative. The money they make has NOTHING to do with their obligation. None. Their obligation has to do with the potential effect of refusing service. They have a similar obligation as firefighters and police and those professions are in a completely different financial bracket, but with a similar potential for harm by inaction.

You're still missing the point. But this time it's by so wide a margin that I don't care to correct you.

We're talking about how morally, we think it is reprehensible that he chose not to provide treatment to a child in pain because he did not approve of the parents. You said correctly that it is his right, that he can turn others away.

You compared it to your own experience of turning away a potential customer and saying that you were within your right to turn her away for what you found to be a moral reasons, although you were "not enforcing" your morality on her.

It strikes me as being in feel like "Yes, I know what I did was wrong, but I did it because my boss said to."

I think it was morally wrong for him to deny service to the child, I don't think he needs to be sued for it, mainly because I doubt that the mom has a case in court.

I didn't have a problem asking the woman to leave my restaurant because she was dressed inappropriately. I feel it's her right to wear what she did, but her right only extends to the point that she infringes on mine, and since I had the right to ask her to leave, I don't think I did anything wrong (legally) now, it may not have been the most moral thing to do, but I can't change that now 5 years later.

There is no law against boiling urine down and drinking it. It is also perfectly healthy. From a chemical perspective it is truly not very different from gatorade. But I would still not be allowed to serve it in a resteraunt.

You also seem to be missing my point. If I leave food all over my kitchen, have a dirty stove, or even a cockroach infestation, I can still cook and serve food in it. I can't do that in a resteraunt kitchen. In getting permission to run a restaurant I must maintain certain standards that ameteur cooks don't.

No, I'm not missing the point. The issues are not comparable. At all. I can refuse people service in a restaurant all day long. Every day. As many as I like. The fact that we have cleanliness standards has nothing to the ability to refuse service. The level of requirements we have about cleanliness are related to the fact that it's not logical or reasonably possible for you to physically inspect every restaurant you go to so we collectively employ the government to do so.

For the record, a cafeteria at a private Christian college can discriminate on the basis of religion and has the same level of regulation that a restaurant does. There simply is no comparison to the obligation of a medical professional.


You're still missing the point. But this time it's by so wide a margin that I don't care to correct you.

Ha. In other words, you don't have a compelling argument so you're going to blame me because you're having difficulty making your point.

The point is that restaurants can and should be able to refuse service. They can set dress codes. They can have all sorts of standards. And no matter who they refuse, no one is put at risk. This is not true of people in a position to serve the public interest.

I think it was morally wrong for him to deny service to the child, I don't think he needs to be sued for it, mainly because I doubt that the mom has a case in court.

Hopefully she will at least try to sue him. Hopefully she does have a case against this so-called doctor. I have never like the idea that one can refuse service for whatever reason someones prejudiced mind can come up with.

I think it was morally wrong for him to deny service to the child, I don't think he needs to be sued for it, mainly because I doubt that the mom has a case in court.

I didn't have a problem asking the woman to leave my restaurant because she was dressed inappropriately. I feel it's her right to wear what she did, but her right only extends to the point that she infringes on mine, and since I had the right to ask her to leave, I don't think I did anything wrong (legally) now, it may not have been the most moral thing to do, but I can't change that now 5 years later.

In the case of a resteraunt that's fine. Part of dining out is the ambience. I can cook a meal that tastes as good as anything a restaurant will serve me for about a tenth of the price. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy taking my wife out to dinner at a fine restaurant. I wouldn't enjoy it, and therefore wouldn't do it, if I could expect to be sitting across from a fat hairy biker in a wife-beater and denim vest. At Denny's however, it wouldn't make a difference.

But the same isn't true of a doctor's office. If a doctor gives me a perscription for amoxacilin while a prostitute waits for a perscription for Cipro my amoxacilin isn't going to work any less well. I got the same service.

The doctor's standards aren't Christian, as he claims. They're snobbery. Looking low class isn't unchristian. The low-class were Christ's best friends. His lack of empathy is only part of what makes him so unchristian. His "standards" also demonstrate arrogance and elitism which opposes everything Christ stood for.

It would be Unchristian to kick people out of a resteraunt for dressing like slobs, but fancy resteraunts are unchristian to begin with. They're all about celebrating material affluence. Think about it? Where else do you get people to wait on you? It's about pretending to be upper class for an hour or two. You're paying for an illusion.

Doctors don't deal in illusion. They deal in medecine. But this doctor claims to be doing both. "...That might make my patients feel uncomfortable," means that he is trying to avoid exactly that snobish protest that an epicurian would feel if he saw someone in biker regalia in his snooty restaurant.

The guy is an asshole, a blasphemer, and a malpractitioner (that may not have been a word, but it is now.) And he's probably not even a good doctor, that's why he's so worried about looking like one.

In the case of a resteraunt that's fine. Part of dining out is the ambience. I can cook a meal that tastes as good as anything a restaurant will serve me for about a tenth of the price. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy taking my wife out to dinner at a fine restaurant. I wouldn't enjoy it, and therefore wouldn't do it, if I could expect to be sitting across from a fat hairy biker in a wife-beater and denim vest. At Denny's however, it wouldn't make a difference.

But the same isn't true of a doctor's office. If a doctor gives me a perscription for amoxacilin while a prostitute waits for a perscription for Cipro my amoxacilin isn't going to work any less well. I got the same service.

This is one of the ways in which two issues are not comparable. Another way is that discriminatory practices in a restaurant do not deny you a safe standard of care, while they do in a doctor's office. The doctor is licensed with the idea that he promotes public health, not the he endangers it. When licensing a restaurant, the government pretty much could care less in what way you interact with your customers or the public provided it is within the law. This simply isn't true on the part of public healthy professionals. The government is very involved in the way they interact with their clients.

No, I'm not missing the point. The issues are not comparable. At all. I can refuse people service in a restaurant all day long. Every day. As many as I like. The fact that we have cleanliness standards has nothing to the ability to refuse service. The level of requirements we have about cleanliness are related to the fact that it's not logical or reasonably possible for you to physically inspect every restaurant you go to so we collectively employ the government to do so.

For the record, a cafeteria at a private Christian college can discriminate on the basis of religion and has the same level of regulation that a restaurant does. There simply is no comparison to the obligation of a medical professional.

The issue is where does the individual businessman's rights run up against those of the consumer, and the obligations that society as a whole has a right to impose on either. That's the issue that you're missing. As a restauranteur you don't have the right to serve any food you choose, or maintain your kitchen in any standard of cleanliness you choose. You do have a right to impose standards of decor and conduct on your clientele.

As a doctor, you do not have the right to impose standards of decor on your clientele. If they were to show up playing really loud music on a boombox you'd be entitled to tell them to turn it off or leave, but you don't have the right to deny them medical care because you don't like how they look.




Ha. In other words, you don't have a compelling argument so you're going to blame me because you're having difficulty making your point.

No. It's more that I don't know where to start. If you were to tell me that the sky were purple I'd be similarly at a loss. I simply don't know how far back I can go to bring you up to speed.

The point is that restaurants can and should be able to refuse service. They can set dress codes.

I've already said as much. You seem to think this is something you need to inform me of. It makes me think you're still missing the point.

They can have all sorts of standards. And no matter who they refuse, no one is put at risk. This is not true of people in a position to serve the public interest.

I've said the same. But virtually any position in society can be seen as a deal. Don't want to be obliged to stop any instance of spouse abuse you happen to see? Don't become a cop. Don't want to have to help poor sick people? Don't become a doctor.

There are payoffs to these jobs. Cops and doctors get a lot of perks. But they are tough jobs that demand sacrifices too. You have to take one with the other.

The fact that you don't care about honor and reciprocity does not mean that they don't exist or apply.

Christians have some extremists in their religion too?

This is unheard of. Sure, all religions have extremists, but SURELY NOT CHRISTIANITY! WE MUST PURGE THIS! OH MY GOSH THE HORROR!

Christians have some extremists in their religion too?

This is unheard of. Sure, all religions have extremists, but SURELY NOT CHRISTIANITY! WE MUST PURGE THIS! OH MY GOSH THE HORROR!

;) We're also discussing how various Christians in this thread, with various differing experiences within their faith, also think this guy is an ass. ;)

;) We're also discussing how various Christians in this thread, with various differing experiences within their faith, also think this guy is an ass. ;)

I'm a christian, and I admit this guys and ass. And I'd have to say yes, Christianity has a ton of jackasses.

The issue is where does the individual businessman's rights run up against those of the consumer, and the obligations that society as a whole has a right to impose on either. That's the issue that you're missing. As a restauranteur you don't have the right to serve any food you choose, or maintain your kitchen in any standard of cleanliness you choose. You do have a right to impose standards of decor and conduct on your clientele.

As a doctor, you do not have the right to impose standards of decor on your clientele. If they were to show up playing really loud music on a boombox you'd be entitled to tell them to turn it off or leave, but you don't have the right to deny them medical care because you don't like how they look.

You mean they have nothing to do with one another yet you're relating them. Again, it's a poor argument. The reasoning for imposing standards are different. The consequences are also different.

These have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You could require them to shut off the radio, but you couldn't refuse them service. And a doctor could easily publish standards of dress and have an expectation that you meet them. He could ask that they cover up their tattoos. He could refer them to another doctor after confirming the child or any other patient has nothing that threatens the quality of their life or the length of it. He can require them to take off their hat. He can hand them a jacket to cover up the tattoos. He can do all kinds of things that would put the onus on the patient to choose service or not. His hands are not tied in the way you suppose in your arguments. And the reasons for the requirements are not the same. At all.

No. It's more that I don't know where to start. If you were to tell me that the sky were purple I'd be similarly at a loss. I simply don't know how far back I can go to bring you up to speed.

Again, you're copping out. If this is the quality of debate you provide, I'm glad you're at a loss.

And if you don't know how to explain the color of the sky, then perhaps you should take a class in basic science and not blame others because you don't know how to explain the the color we see is due to the scattering of light by the atmosphere then that is your failing in your ability to present an argument. And I suppose you're aware that if it were the right time of day (which it is if you're in the right place in the world) the sky could very well be purple.

I've already said as much. You seem to think this is something you need to inform me of. It makes me think you're still missing the point.

Your point has no substance. You're claiming things that are untrue and relating things that are unrelated.

In case you're wondering I designed medical ethics courses for an online university called University.com. We were licensed to provide continuing education for doctors. I also used to manage wait crews at TGI Fridays and Chef Jean Louis' in Champaign and Urbana, IL, respectively. I'm familiar with the standards and why they were created. You're plainly and simply wrong.

The reasons for refusing service needn't be what you claim. They can just as easily be "I don't like you, please find another restaurant." Restaurants cannot in any way cause damage to a client by inaction. However, doctors have an ethical responsiblity to ENSURE they are not causing damage through inaction.

I've said the same. But virtually any position in society can be seen as a deal. Don't want to be obliged to stop any instance of spouse abuse you happen to see? Don't become a cop. Don't want to have to help poor sick people? Don't become a doctor.

Again, what does this have to do with restaurants. Your comparison is where we disagree and it was a nonsensical comparison. The obligation of the doctor is related to the danger of not fulfilling that obligation. That reasoning cannot be related to a restauranteur in any way.


There are payoffs to these jobs. Cops and doctors get a lot of perks. But they are tough jobs that demand sacrifices too. You have to take one with the other.

Their requirements are not a tradeoff for perks. The requirements are there due to necessity. Evidence for this is that some positions have more perks than others but the obligation is the same.


The fact that you don't care about honor and reciprocity does not mean that they don't exist or apply.

Ad hominem and not evident in my statements. Personal attacks make it seem like perhaps you don't have confidence that your argument has any basis.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you quote where I said or indicated I don't care about honor and reciprocity or admit you're just attacking me because you don't have a decent reason for equating the restaurant issue to the medical issue.

This is one of the ways in which two issues are not comparable. Another way is that discriminatory practices in a restaurant do not deny you a safe standard of care, while they do in a doctor's office. The doctor is licensed with the idea that he promotes public health, not the he endangers it. When licensing a restaurant, the government pretty much could care less in what way you interact with your customers or the public provided it is within the law. This simply isn't true on the part of public healthy professionals. The government is very involved in the way they interact with their clients.

But the comparison of the two cases still serves to highlight the extent to which the collective good outweighs the rights of the individual businessman to conduct his business as he sees fit. And on almost any issue having to do with health, the entrepeneurs rights are extremely limited.

I know of a simple herbal remedy that will alleviate the symptoms of a stomach ulcer better than almost anything a doctor can perscribe. But I'm not allowed to sell it as such. A resteraunt is providing two services, entertainment, and food preperation. They are held to very strict standards on the food preperation, because that's a health issue. But they have almost carte blanche in their customer service, except for a handful of specifically legislated civil rights issues (e.g. can't deny service to a particular race).

But there are all sorts of practical reasons why doctors shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in this fashion. Civil rights, availability of alternative doctors, reliance on referrals...

Doctors aren't so independent and private in their business that they can claim that they have no obligations to society outside of their pre-selected customer base. They are part of a government supported infrastructure, and that brings obligations to the people who support that government.

A pediatrician refused to treat a small child for an ear infection because her parents had tatoos. The prick who should have his medical license revoked claimed that he was trying to "create a Christian atmosphere" in his office. If I were that kid's father I'd be waiting for that piece of shit outside his office after closing.

http://www.kget.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=f290458b-dd7d-4a20-ac99-525e48365b08

I'd report him to whatever the US equivlant of Englands GMC (General Medical Council) is, though the GMC are toothless.

The doctor's standards aren't Christian, as he claims. They're snobbery. Looking low class isn't unchristian. The low-class were Christ's best friends. His lack of empathy is only part of what makes him so unchristian. His "standards" also demonstrate arrogance and elitism which opposes everything Christ stood for.

True. Christ even spoke to people who were ostracised by society, and Christians are supposed to follow the teachings and actions of Christ (as fas as is humanly possible anyway) as laid down in the New Testament.

But the comparison of the two cases still serves to highlight the extent to which the collective good outweighs the rights of the individual businessman to conduct his business as he sees fit. And on almost any issue having to do with health, the entrepeneurs rights are extremely limited.

Not just businessmen. That's the point. Your comparison has no teeth. It adds nothing and simply detracts from the point. It's a poor argument and has as much value as claiming I don't believe in honor.


I know of a simple herbal remedy that will alleviate the symptoms of a stomach ulcer better than almost anything a doctor can perscribe. But I'm not allowed to sell it as such. A resteraunt is providing two services, entertainment, and food preperation. They are held to very strict standards on the food preperation, because that's a health issue. But they have almost carte blanche in their customer service, except for a handful of specifically legislated civil rights issues (e.g. can't deny service to a particular race).

They would have the same standards if they weren't selling it. They could simply be providing it free of charge as part of a service to students at a college and would have the same requirements. They could be giving it away at a shelter. It's not because it's a business and it's not related to the perks as you claimed. Keep squirming but no amount of wriggling changes that the issues are completely and utterly unrelated to the fact that they are a business.


But there are all sorts of practical reasons why doctors shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in this fashion. Civil rights, availability of alternative doctors, reliance on referrals...

Doctors aren't so independent and private in their business that they can claim that they have no obligations to society outside of their pre-selected customer base. They are part of a government supported infrastructure, and that brings obligations to the people who support that government.

Nope. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the danger of denying treatment. The danger of inaction. Have you even read a book on medical ethics? Even if a doctor is readily available across the street, even if it's not related to civil rights, even if no referral is required, a doctor must ensure that the patient is not endangered by the period between service of the first doctor and service of an alternate. It's required due to the danger of inaction. Nothing else.

If you can remove a variable and it does not affect the outcome it's an independent variable. You keep trying to claim variables are dependent when it can be proven they are not. It's not related to compensation as you claimed. It's not related to being a business as you claimed. It's not related to civil rights as you claim. It's not related to referrals as you claimed. It's not related to the availability of alternate doctors. It's completely and solely related to the danger of inaction. If two events occur in which same action on behalf of the doctor is performed and one creates potential danger to the patient by inaction and the other does not the doctor would be sanctioned for the first and not the second.

He may or may not be sanctioned for civil rights violations, none of which were committed here. He may or may not be sanctioned for failing to refer, which isn't an issue here. And there is no evidence that there was no other service available. He is only responsible for the time between his denial of service and the service provided by another doctor being a time where there is no significant danger to the patient due to his inaction. It's really quite simple.

True. Christ even spoke to people who were ostracised by society, and Christians are supposed to follow the teachings and actions of Christ (as fas as is humanly possible anyway) as laid down in the New Testament.

Christ was actually attacked verbally for spending time with prostitutes and he asked who needs his guidance more than a prostitute. He actually advocated going out your way to show more of the Christian values toward those that we view as lost.

Christ was actually attacked verbally for spending time with prostitutes and he asked who needs his guidance more than a prostitute. He actually advocated going out your way to show more of the Christian values toward those that we view as lost.

Exactly. So what the doc did was VERY unChristian.

Also I just read this: “I have tattoos, actually, and no, nothing’s ever been said about it,” Brandi Stanley said, Merrill’s patient" on that article - seems tattoos actually have nothing to do with it then (and thus his warped idea of "Christian values" has nothing to do with it) - he just didn't like the woman for a reason that had nothing to do with his warped beliefs.

Exactly. So what the doc did was VERY unChristian.

Also I just read this: “I have tattoos, actually, and no, nothing’s ever been said about it,” Brandi Stanley said, Merrill’s patient" on that article - seems tattoos actually have nothing to do with it then (and thus his warped idea of "Christian values" has nothing to do with it) - he just didn't like the woman for a reason that had nothing to do with his warped beliefs.

It would be very unChristian of him to turn a child in pain away for his issues with the parent. He should have treated the child and, if he felt it necessary, then referred the parents to another competent pediatrician. It still might be unChristian depending on his reasoning but at least it would be ethical.

By the way, they are unclear about the tattoos. It may be that one person had uncovered tattoos and that the doctor simply requires them to be covered. The woman complaining made it clear that she believes that he doesn't have the right to ask her to cover them up or to ask her to go to another doctor in the future. She's wrong. He does and it's not unethical.

I didn't have a problem asking the woman to leave my restaurant because she was dressed inappropriately. I feel it's her right to wear what she did, but her right only extends to the point that she infringes on mine, and since I had the right to ask her to leave, I don't think I did anything wrong (legally) now, it may not have been the most moral thing to do, but I can't change that now 5 years later.

And what official dress code was there? Or did you just make a moral judgement off the top of your head...?

No. It's more that I don't know where to start. If you were to tell me that the sky were purple I'd be similarly at a loss. I simply don't know how far back I can go to bring you up to speed.

The sky IS purple. Violet is the dominant scattered colour in the visible spectrum.
Our eyes however are far more sensitive to blue, so we perceive it that way. But that does not mean they are right ;)

The sky IS purple. Violet is the dominant scattered colour in the visible spectrum.
Our eyes however are far more sensitive to blue, so we perceive it that way. But that does not mean they are right ;)

No, no. You're just so far away from your understanding that he cannot even explain it to you. Stop asking him to support his assertions. Oh, and you don't believe in honor.

(See, other parts of his posts if you don't follow the reference.)

Not just businessmen. That's the point. Your comparison has no teeth. It adds nothing and simply detracts from the point. It's a poor argument and has as much value as claiming I don't believe in honor.

The comparison was not mine to begin with, but it still serves to highlight the right of the government to set standards for what a business can do, can't do, and must do. Your narrow focus is rather like looking at something purple and claiming that it's blue. Then to prove that it is blue and not red you point out how much pure blue dye went into it.

They would have the same standards if they weren't selling it. They could simply be providing it free of charge as part of a service to students at a college and would have the same requirements. They could be giving it away at a shelter. It's not because it's a business and it's not related to the perks as you claimed. Keep squirming but no amount of wriggling changes that the issues are completely and utterly unrelated to the fact that they are a business.

But it is a business and this guy is claiming that because he is a business this is his right. It is not squirming on my point to address the issue the way it has already been framed. Your viewpoint is oddly limited. Yes, it can be viewed in the way you are saying, but that doesn't mean that they other issues are irrelevant.

The death penalty may be impractical and ineffective, but that doesn't mean it isn't also immoral and cruel. It can be both.

Also, there are no standards on regulating that herbal remedy I mentioned as long as I don't sell it as a cure for stomach ulcers. I can sell it as a slimy, slightly sweet drink if I choose to.

Nope. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the danger of denying treatment. The danger of inaction. Have you even read a book on medical ethics? Even if a doctor is readily available across the street, even if it's not related to civil rights, even if no referral is required, a doctor must ensure that the patient is not endangered by the period between service of the first doctor and service of an alternate. It's required due to the danger of inaction. Nothing else.

This is the reason that I didn't want to bother correcting you before. You see one tiny part of the whole and think that because it fits that there must be nothing else. A cube may fit neatly in the corner of a room with no gaps or seams, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a whole empty room around it. The points you're trying to address aren't wrong, but where you are wrong is claiming that that's all their is.

You're not wrong exaclty, just deliberatly incomplete.

If you can remove a variable and it does not affect the outcome it's an independent variable. You keep trying to claim variables are dependent when it can be proven they are not. It's not related to compensation as you claimed. It's not related to being a business as you claimed. It's not related to civil rights as you claim. It's not related to referrals as you claimed. It's not related to the availability of alternate doctors. It's completely and solely related to the danger of inaction. If two events occur in which same action on behalf of the doctor is performed and one creates potential danger to the patient by inaction and the other does not the doctor would be sanctioned for the first and not the second.

[QUOTE]He may or may not be sanctioned for civil rights violations, none of which were committed here. He may or may not be sanctioned for failing to refer, which isn't an issue here. And there is no evidence that there was no other service available. He is only responsible for the time between his denial of service and the service provided by another doctor being a time where there is no significant danger to the patient due to his inaction. It's really quite simple.

The world is a simple place to simple people. And again, the doctor is, himself, basing his assertion of his right to do this based on his status as a private businessman. I'm making the point that he's not all that private, and is in a position to serve those who need his service. You're claiming that I'm wrong for agreeing with your position based on a train of thought you find uneccessary. That is stupid.

Again, it's like saying that there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty because, and only because, it is already wrong in practical terms.

There is more at stake than whether or not her eardrum burst in the time it took for her to find treatment elsewhere.

The fact that this issue has been allowed to become a debate is an extension of the pharmacists who became an issue last year in refusing to honor perscriptions that they belived were immoral. Many politicians came out in support of them. There were few instances where people would come to harm because they had to drive to another location to fill their perscriptions, but it established the possibility that medical professionals have the right to refuse care for the sake of their religious beliefs.

You probably don't see that, but because we live in a more complicated world than you're willing to admit, you see the two as distinct when they aren't.

It would be very unChristian of him to turn a child in pain away for his issues with the parent. He should have treated the child and, if he felt it necessary, then referred the parents to another competent pediatrician. It still might be unChristian depending on his reasoning but at least it would be ethical.

This is exactly the intellectual myopia I was talking about before. We all know that turning away sick children is the worst of what he did, and the most obviously unchristian. I took a moment to say that there were a lot of ways in which what he did contravened the teachings of Christ and you feel you must bring it back to "he's unchristian because he turned away a sick child," as though we all missed that point.

The comparison was not mine to begin with, but it still serves to highlight the right of the government to set standards for what a business can do, can't do, and must do. Your narrow focus is rather like looking at something purple and claiming that it's blue. Then to prove that it is blue and not red you point out how much pure blue dye went into it.

When the comparison was put out there I pointed out why she is permitted to do what she did and that it is not comparable to a doctor's office. You suggested it was comparable and then went on to prove it isn't.

The standards are not for businesses but for those who serve food to the public. You're still wrong and you keep avoiding addressing how and why you are wrong, instead hoping that repitition will somehow change the facts.


But it is a business and this guy is claiming that because he is a business this is his right. It is not squirming on my point to address the issue the way it has already been framed. Your viewpoint is oddly limited. Yes, it can be viewed in the way you are saying, but that doesn't mean that they other issues are irrelevant.

However, you are tying business into the equation when it's not a dependent variable. It has nothing to do with the issue. It's an issue of public interest in one case and medical ethics in the other. Medical ethics are not necessarily enforced by the government and are usually enforced by the medical community at large. This is why the issues are not comparable.



The death penalty may be impractical and ineffective, but that doesn't mean it isn't also immoral and cruel. It can be both.

Also, there are no standards on regulating that herbal remedy I mentioned as long as I don't sell it as a cure for stomach ulcers. I can sell it as a slimy, slightly sweet drink if I choose to.

Again, you are simply subjugating the issue. The medical community is not ethically regulated by the government. Medical licensing is handled by the AMA much like legal licensing is handled by the ABA.



This is the reason that I didn't want to bother correcting you before. You see one tiny part of the whole and think that because it fits that there must be nothing else. A cube may fit neatly in the corner of a room with no gaps or seams, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a whole empty room around it. The points you're trying to address aren't wrong, but where you are wrong is claiming that that's all their is.

Again, you simply subjugating the issue. The problem isn't simply that you can't compare the two but that in comparing the two you are stating things that are inaccurate. The variables you are claiming are dependent are not. The rules for restaurants are not related to being a business and the rules of ethics in the medical community are enforced by the medical community, not the government.

You're not wrong exaclty, just deliberatly incomplete.

You are wrong. And it's clearly not deliberate. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

You claim I'm being deliberately incomplete because I remove factors in the equation that are not dependent variables. That's called looking at what is significant. I'm sorry that you don't know the difference between what is significant and what is not because your lack of familiarity with the subject. I'll help.

That's it's a business is not a dependent variable and I've shown why.
Compensation is not a dependent variable and I've shown why.

Doctors obligations are set by the danger to their clients of inaction. That you don't know this is ignorance. Claiming that there is some other source of obligation is provably false. Period.

The world is a simple place to simple people. And again, the doctor is, himself, basing his assertion of his right to do this based on his status as a private businessman. I'm making the point that he's not all that private, and is in a position to serve those who need his service. You're claiming that I'm wrong for agreeing with your position based on a train of thought you find uneccessary. That is stupid.

Medical ethics are not dependent on whether or not he is a private businessman or not and says that his obligation has to do with whether or not he endangered the child. They decided he did not and therefore there is nothing wrong with his actions. The seperate issue of whether or not he is a private businessman is one of a different kind and has little or nothing to do with the fact that he is a doctor.

I'm claiming you're wrong because you are saying things that are inaccurate. That your conclusion agrees with me has little to do with the fallaciousness of your arguments. They are provably erroneous.



Again, it's like saying that there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty because, and only because, it is already wrong in practical terms.

There is more at stake than whether or not her eardrum burst in the time it took for her to find treatment elsewhere.

No, it isn't. What is ethically required of a doctor is that he not endanger his patients by action or inaction. Only in a few roles in society do we require that action be taken if inaction puts one at risk. Doctors is one of those roles.

And, no, very simply the only thing at stake is the health of the patient. No one cares about whether or not you're offended by his beliefs. He is entitled to them provided he does not endanger patients.



The fact that this issue has been allowed to become a debate is an extension of the pharmacists who became an issue last year in refusing to honor perscriptions that they belived were immoral. Many politicians came out in support of them. There were few instances where people would come to harm because they had to drive to another location to fill their perscriptions, but it established the possibility that medical professionals have the right to refuse care for the sake of their religious beliefs.

Pharmacists are not wrong to refuse service. They are wrong to refuse service and refuse to allow you to go to another place for service, whether this is through disallowing a referral or through that an alternative is not reasonable available is not material. Provided they do not endanger you they are COMPLETELY ethically and legally permitted to refuse service.



You probably don't see that, but because we live in a more complicated world than you're willing to admit, you see the two as distinct when they aren't.

Amusing. I'm simplifying the issue so you can follow along. You clearly don't know the first thing about medical ethics. Unlike you I recognize the facts. You close your eyes and pretend it's dark. The medical community is governed ethically by the medically community to very good effect. Again, don't get upset that I chose to educate myself on the subject and you're talking out of your ass. Read a book and come back and stop blaming me for your ignorance on the subject.

This is exactly the intellectual myopia I was talking about before. We all know that turning away sick children is the worst of what he did, and the most obviously unchristian. I took a moment to say that there were a lot of ways in which what he did contravened the teachings of Christ and you feel you must bring it back to "he's unchristian because he turned away a sick child," as though we all missed that point.

The rest of what he did depends on his reasoning. He has every right to require a mode of dress in his office and there is nothing unChristian about doing so. The facts are not available to us. We know that one person who is tattooed is welcome and one is not so there must be more information we don't know. I know your beef is that he didn't behave how YOU think he should, be so long as he doesn't endanger patients and as long as he applies his wishes for atmosphere equally then we're not in a position to judge him.

What many missed is that is the only provably unChristian thing he did. We don't have the information to assess the rest as I pointed out in the rest of my post.

It's amusing that you're so willing to condemn this person without the facts and then accuse me of oversimplifying. What were the tattoos of? You don't know. Were they obscene? You don't know. Violent? You don't know. Inappropriate for an office full of children? You don't know. Did the parents refuse to cover them up? You don't know. Very simply, you don't know what happened and what was unChristian about his actions. What we do know is that he turned away a child who was in pain. On that we can be sure. So on that we can say he was unChristian. The rest is wild and ignorant speculation on your part.

all this talk about refusing servise is very good and all, but if you owned a restaurant and you refused a family because one of the members of that family was african american, you would in the wrong.

Just because the parents have tattoos should not affect the child.

And what official dress code was there? Or did you just make a moral judgement off the top of your head...?

I am not required to have an "official" dress code, I have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (or I did then, now my reasons are different because I am in a different business)

She was dressed inappropriately, she offended the rest of my customers, I asked her to leave. I was within my rights to do so, whatever you think about it doesn't really matter to me.

I didn't make a moral judgment btw, I don't think it's necessarily immoral for her to dress the way she did, being immoral is not one of the tests that she was required to meet by law, in fact there weren't any further than "I don't want you in my restaurant".

all this talk about refusing servise is very good and all, but if you owned a restaurant and you refused a family because one of the members of that family was african american, you would in the wrong.

Just because the parents have tattoos should not affect the child.

again, being black is a protected class, having tattoos is not.

When the comparison was put out there I pointed out why she is permitted to do what she did and that it is not comparable to a doctor's office. You suggested it was comparable and then went on to prove it isn't.

The standards are not for businesses but for those who serve food to the public. You're still wrong and you keep avoiding addressing how and why you are wrong, instead hoping that repitition will somehow change the facts.




However, you are tying business into the equation when it's not a dependent variable. It has nothing to do with the issue. It's an issue of public interest in one case and medical ethics in the other. Medical ethics are not necessarily enforced by the government and are usually enforced by the medical community at large. This is why the issues are not comparable.





Also, there are no standards on regulating that herbal remedy I mentioned as long as I don't sell it as a cure for stomach ulcers. I can sell it as a slimy, slightly sweet drink if I choose to.

Again, you are simply subjugating the issue. The medical community is not ethically regulated by the government. Medical licensing is handled by the AMA much like legal licensing is handled by the ABA.





Again, you simply subjugating the issue. The problem isn't simply that you can't compare the two but that in comparing the two you are stating things that are inaccurate. The variables you are claiming are dependent are not. The rules for restaurants are not related to being a business and the rules of ethics in the medical community are enforced by the medical community, not the government.



You are wrong. And it's clearly not deliberate. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

You claim I'm being deliberately incomplete because I remove factors in the equation that are not dependent variables. That's called looking at what is significant. I'm sorry that you don't know the difference between what is significant and what is not because your lack of familiarity with the subject. I'll help.

That's it's a business is not a dependent variable and I've shown why.
Compensation is not a dependent variable and I've shown why.

Doctors obligations are set by the danger to their clients of inaction. That you don't know this is ignorance. Claiming that there is some other source of obligation is provably false. Period.



Medical ethics are not dependent on whether or not he is a private businessman or not and says that his obligation has to do with whether or not he endangered the child. They decided he did not and therefore there is nothing wrong with his actions. The seperate issue of whether or not he is a private businessman is one of a different kind and has little or nothing to do with the fact that he is a doctor.

I'm claiming you're wrong because you are saying things that are inaccurate. That your conclusion agrees with me has little to do with the fallaciousness of your arguments. They are provably erroneous.





No, it isn't. What is ethically required of a doctor is that he not endanger his patients by action or inaction. Only in a few roles in society do we require that action be taken if inaction puts one at risk. Doctors is one of those roles.

And, no, very simply the only thing at stake is the health of the patient. No one cares about whether or not you're offended by his beliefs. He is entitled to them provided he does not endanger patients.





Pharmacists are not wrong to refuse service. They are wrong to refuse service and refuse to allow you to go to another place for service, whether this is through disallowing a referral or through that an alternative is not reasonable available is not material. Provided they do not endanger you they are COMPLETELY ethically and legally permitted to refuse service.





Amusing. I'm simplifying the issue so you can follow along. You clearly don't know the first thing about medical ethics. Unlike you I recognize the facts. You close your eyes and pretend it's dark. The medical community is governed ethically by the medically community to very good effect. Again, don't get upset that I chose to educate myself on the subject and you're talking out of your ass. Read a book and come back and stop blaming me for your ignorance on the subject.

I know very well what I'm talking about thank you. It's just that there is more to right and wrong than what the AMA says counts as malpractice. You think you know all about everything because you've read a bit about medical ethics. It's very common in people who think they've suddenly discovered a whole new world of knowledge that most people don't. There is more at stake here than medical ethics. Medical ethics are not morality and are not the ultimate decider of right and wrong, nor about what is legal and illegal.

Remember that whole scene in Good Will Hunting where the freshmen thought they were really smart because they took a class on economics? And they had to have it explained to them that while the introductory material makes it all look so simple, they will find out soon that there's a lot that they haven't been let in on?

You're sticking your nose in a book and your head in the sand, and it shows through in the way you talk about medical ethics and theology.


And the pharmacists did in many cases refuse to return the perscriptions so that the patients could not get them filled by another pharmacist, and still have politicians rushing to their defense. In a social context, this is just an extension of the same argument that allowed them to do that.

When the comparison was put out there I pointed out why she is permitted to do what she did and that it is not comparable to a doctor's office. You suggested it was comparable and then went on to prove it isn't.

Do you even know what comparable means?

It means there is grounds for comparison. The heat of a candle is comparable to the heat of the sun. One can melt a planet, the other can't. That's a comparison.

The extent to which the government can regulate the functioning of a medical office is comparable to the extent to which it can regulate the functioning of a restaurant.

I did not go on to show that the two couldn't be compared. I went on to show that there was a difference. The comparison is what is used to demonstrate the difference.

The rest of what he did depends on his reasoning. He has every right to require a mode of dress in his office and there is nothing unChristian about doing so. The facts are not available to us. We know that one person who is tattooed is welcome and one is not so there must be more information we don't know. I know your beef is that he didn't behave how YOU think he should, be so long as he doesn't endanger patients and as long as he applies his wishes for atmosphere equally then we're not in a position to judge him.

What many missed is that is the only provably unChristian thing he did. We don't have the information to assess the rest as I pointed out in the rest of my post.

It's amusing that you're so willing to condemn this person without the facts and then accuse me of oversimplifying. What were the tattoos of? You don't know. Were they obscene? You don't know. Violent? You don't know. Inappropriate for an office full of children? You don't know. Did the parents refuse to cover them up? You don't know. Very simply, you don't know what happened and what was unChristian about his actions. What we do know is that he turned away a child who was in pain. On that we can be sure. So on that we can say he was unChristian. The rest is wild and ignorant speculation on your part.

He had a sign in his office that said that appearance will be grounds for refusing medical care. That's demonstrably unchristian. There is nothing wild or ignorant about recognizing it.

He had a sign in his office that said that appearance will be grounds for refusing medical care. That's demonstrably unchristian. There is nothing wild or ignorant about recognizing it.

And by fact, it's not demonstrably unChristian. If your appearance inappropriate for children then there is nothing unChristian about refusing to allow you to be around in children in an office where children are supposed to be and for which he is responsible. Meanwhile, you assume that this applied in a way that would make it unChristian. Would you claim it is unChristian for me to require you to wear a shirt in a doctor's office? Is it unChristian for me to require you to cover up your tattoo that says black people are apes? You have NO IDEA how he applied that sign and there is nothing unChristian about the claim itself.

Please explain to me where Christ suggests that in a children's doctor office that people should be permitted to wear anything they like. Even a suggestive teaching of Christ. I'd be very interested to read it. Since it's demonstrable and all. I'll wait.

And by fact, it's not. If your appearance inappropriate for children then there is nothing unChristian about refusing to allow you to be around in children in an office where children are supposed to be and for which he is responsible.

Please explain to me where Christ suggests that in a children's doctor office that people should be permitted to wear anything they like. Even a suggestive teaching of Christ. I'd be very interested to read it. Since it's demonstrable and all. I'll wait.

Please explain to me where he says that children should be kept ignorant of bad body art?

There is absolutly nothing to suggest that the tattoos were of obscene acts, you're just making it up as something that you think would make it ok to refuse a medical care.

He has said outright that he is doing it to keep out people he thinks would make his other patients uncomfortable. Nothing about obscenity or violence, just the discomfort of his other patients.

Being a christian, at least in the tradition of christ himself, is about putting up with those things that make you uncomfortable. Christ himself said that following his teachings would make you an excluded figure. Yet here he is excluding those whose appearance he disapproves of.

And since you can go ahead and make up stuff that would prove your point. I think that satanic altar in the secret alcove pretty much proves his anti-christian agenda.

Do you even know what comparable means?

I know what it means and I know that you offered the comparison that they are obligated as a business, which isn't true and that obligation is the same business or not, and that they are obligated by the government, and doctors ethics are governed by a non-governmental agency. Both of those comparisons are inaccurate.


It means there is grounds for comparison. The heat of a candle is comparable to the heat of the sun. One can melt a planet, the other can't. That's a comparison.

Yes, except in this case you'd be right that both have heat. You compared these as similar and they are not similar in any of the ways you said. That's why your argument is wrong and ignorant.


The extent to which the government can regulate the functioning of a medical office is comparable to the extent to which it can regulate the functioning of a restaurant.

The government does not regulate this kind of behavior of doctors, the AMA does. I know you don't realize it, but it's true. Like I said, your comparison is inaccurate because you're ignorant of who regulates what.


I did not go on to show that the two couldn't be compared. I went on to show that there was a difference. The comparison is what is used to demonstrate the difference.

No, you went on to show how you were comparing them which demonstrated exactly the problem with the comparison. One is being enforced by the government and the other has ethics applied by a non-governmental organization. Again, this is why your comparison was ignorant and inaccurate.

The obligation is not created in any of the ways you suggested in your arguments or comparisons. That's not debateable. It's provably false.

Please explain to me where he says that children should be kept ignorant of bad body art?

Please tell me where it says they should be exposed to it. You're making the assertion that it's unChristian. I'm saying there is no relationship. You said you could demonstrate it. Please do.

There is absolutly nothing to suggest that the tattoos were of obscene acts, you're just making it up as something that you think would make it ok to refuse a medical care.

No, not at all. Reading is important in online debate. I said it is an adequate reason to ensure they are safely tended to and then refer them to another doctor. If they NEED medical care it should be provided first.

Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that we don't know if the actions were unChristian and giving examples of where it would have nothing to do with being Christian. You said it could be demonstrated that the actions were unChristian which means you must eliminate all circumstances where asking the couple to leave would be understandable as a Christian.

You realize that when you argue "there is absolutely nothing to suggest... therefore..." that you're arguing from ignorance. I gave an example of how this may have been a case where their appearance was inappropraite for children. The onus is on you to show that what this doctor did is unChristian, which means eliminated EVERY possibility where is actions would be justified as a Christian.


He has said outright that he is doing it to keep out people he thinks would make his other patients uncomfortable. Nothing about obscenity or violence, just the discomfort of his other patients.

He said outright that he does it to create a Christian atmosphere. I think obscenity and violence being an issue with such an atmosphere is implied. Again, show what part of what he did is unChristian. You said it was demonstrable. You've not demonstrated that asking people to find another caregiver when they do not comply with the dresscode is unChristian.


Being a christian, at least in the tradition of christ himself, is about putting up with those things that make you uncomfortable. Christ himself said that following his teachings would make you an excluded figure. Yet here he is excluding those whose appearance he disapproves of.

He isn't making choices for only himself, but for the children in his office. Are you suggesting that in order be Christian one must never stop anyone from exposing children to anything? And if you aren't saying that, then you must demonstrate that Christ drew the line at obscene dress or body art.



And since you can go ahead and make up stuff that would prove your point. I think that satanic altar in the secret alcove pretty much proves his anti-christian agenda.

I'm not making stuff up. I'm pointing out how much you don't know about this scenario.

Was the body art obscene? You have no clue, so we must assume it's possible.

Was the body art violent? You have no clue, so we must assume that it could possibly have been.

Therefore, the actions MAY have been unChristian but suggest they MUST have been is to argue from ignorance, which is of course a logical fallacy.

You said demonstrable so you must prove that these were not the case or that Christ would have had no problem with people wearing obscene body art around children.

How ironic it is that the people that constantly rant about Christian values are the one people so devoid of anything that resembles them.

you are confusing laws and morality, you want to force your morality on someone else by use of the law.

it may have been morally wrong for him to turn the child away, however it was his legal right.

I don't confuse laws and morality, there are many things I find immoral that I don't think should be illegal. I am not interested in anyone who wants to force their morality on me, therefore I don't try to force my morality on others.

No, I am well aware of the difference.

I am saying that there is no practical difference between turning someone away based on their parents skin colour or based on their parents tatoos. The only legal difference is that one is covered by a semi-arbitary set of protected groups - why is it legally OK to discriminate against someone based on their parents having a tatoo but it is not OK to discriminate against them based on their skin colour?

I am saying I am well aware that one is legal and the other is not, however the point I was making is that the question is "Should he be allowed to discriminate based on the kids parents choice of skin decoration" NOT "Can he discriminate based on the kids parents". You are answering the question bases on wether he legally can do this, not wether he should be able to do this. Or are you also saying you think people should be able to turn people away based on skin colour?