NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/lesbians_a_mystery_to_city_md_complaint_filed_heres_what_could_happen38441529.html

Long story short: Doctor has no idea how to treat lesbians because they are infested with all sorts of gay diseases. Also, homosexuality is against her religion so it is obviously impossible to treat them regardless.


How the fuck does some one who is actively willingly to and interested in discriminating against people decide to go into a profession where their prescribed job is to help people regardless of any problems? "Oh, I don't like gays, I refuse to treat them medically." "I don't agree with abortion, no contraceptives for you." Then get a different fucking job then.

I smell a soon-to-be-unemployed doctor.

they are already placing sandbags with the talk about orientation for foreign trained doctors.


And this is Canada not America. :tongue: (wait for the Canada is on North America comment even though that is not what is meant.)

Stop oppressing Christians you bastard!

What kind of doctor refuses medical treatment because of someone's sexuality? She should lose her license

She didn't refuse to treat them, or at least she claims she didn't. Her story is that she advised them to find a doctor that had experience treating lesbians. It really sounds less like malice and more like very strange ignorance. Very, very strange ignorance.

She didn't refuse to treat them, or at least she claims she didn't. Her story is that she advised them to find a doctor that had experience treating lesbians. It really sounds less like malice and more like very strange ignorance. Very, very strange ignorance.

She says she "doesn't know how to treat lesbians", which such a bizarre statement. It's like she imagines they're physically different or something.

She didn't refuse to treat them, or at least she claims she didn't. Her story is that she advised them to find a doctor that had experience treating lesbians. It really sounds less like malice and more like very strange ignorance. Very, very strange ignorance.

So it's a choice between her being a bigot who should lose her license or an idiot who should lose her license.

She didn't refuse to treat them, or at least she claims she didn't. Her story is that she advised them to find a doctor that had experience treating lesbians. It really sounds less like malice and more like very strange ignorance. Very, very strange ignorance.

Agreed, but, I do believe she may be unemployed for ignorance....very very strange ignorance, lol...

Im not buying the "I dont know how!" She is just a vile bigot who should be put in the metaphorical stocks to have metaphorical rotten vegetables hurled at her.

What kind of doctor refuses medical treatment because of someone's sexuality? She should lose her license

She didn't refuse to treat them she suggested they find another doctor.

There's no indication she's a Christian here, it really seems to be someone from another culture not knowing quite how to deal with a new experience, namely lesbian patients.

I'm inclined to give the doctor a little leeway, we harvest good medical staff from developing countries, drop them in Manitoba and are then surprised when they have certain cultural issues.

I'm sure she's learned her lesson.

She didn't refuse to treat them she suggested they find another doctor.

That is NOT AN OPTION.

If she knows how to treat the person, she should. Her will means NOTHING. It's not her choice to make.

She should know her place.

She should know her place.
In the kitchen?

*ducks*

I'd like to point something out: she can't treat lesbians because she doesn't know how.

The fact is, lesbians require a range of anatomical and biochemical knowledge distinct from the array of expertise used in treating breeders and fish.

I draw your attention to the following:

Lesbians respire through the elbow.
Lesbians have no liver.
Lesbians do not eat, they photosynthesize through night-club lights, except the ones fueled by diesel.
Lesbians procreate via breaking themselves in half against a rock, and each half grows into a new, full-sized lesbians.
Lesbians have no soul and are thus unsaveable by Jesus.

Thus, the doctor is justified in not doing what she is unable to do. A=A.

That is NOT AN OPTION.

If she knows how to treat the person, she should. Her will means NOTHING. It's not her choice to make.

She should know her place.

what are you talking about she didn't refuse to give them treatment.
All she did was admit she was uncomfortable with it and suggest their interest would be better served with another doctor.
Saying your uncomfortable with someone or something is not a crime.
Nor is it a crime to suggest others might perform a better job.

That is NOT AN OPTION.

If she knows how to treat the person, she should. Her will means NOTHING. It's not her choice to make.

She should know her place.

That's the thing though. She doesn't think she knows how. She's wrong of course, but this is a case of stupidity and not malicious intent.

Sarkhaan pointed out that it doesn't really change what the result should be. Functionally that sort of stupidity is hardly a step up. But let's not assume malice where simple stupidity may suffice.

That's the thing though. She doesn't think she knows how. She's wrong of course, but this is a case of stupidity and not malicious intent.

Sarkhaan pointed out that it doesn't really change what the result should be. Functionally that sort of stupidity is hardly a step up. But let's not assume malice where simple stupidity may suffice.

I am curious about where she got her medical degree. if its from the mideast I am not surprised. Though on that note the Mideast does have some good medical schools if lacking in being progressive.

What kind of a doctor was she? Was she a gynocologist?
Part of every doctor's training should be about the legal issues in medicine and she should be taught that she cannot discriminate based on sexuality. She should also be taught that a person's sexuality does not severely affect the type of medical treatment one needs.

The article is well written, and makes a few good points.

what are you talking about she didn't refuse to give them treatment.
All she did was admit she was uncomfortable with it and suggest their interest would be better served with another doctor.
Saying your uncomfortable with someone or something is not a crime.
Nor is it a crime to suggest others might perform a better job.

This is more about Her and the Hippocratic Oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath), to which all doctors are bound.

What kind of a doctor was she? Was she a gynocologist?
Part of every doctor's training should be about the legal issues in medicine and she should be taught that she cannot discriminate based on sexuality. She should also be taught that a person's sexuality does not severely affect the type of medical treatment one needs.

The article is well written, and makes a few good points.

She didn't refuse them she just said she was uncomfortable and suggested they find a different doctor. The only think only thing she is guilty of is not saying it tactfully but shoot English is her 2nd language (or more likely her 3rd or 4th), cut her some slack for how to discuss a difficult issue like sexuality.
go learn Arabic and try to discuss sexuality with out offending someone.

This is more about Her and the Hippocratic Oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath), to which all doctors are bound.

1st she didn't break the oath. she did not refuse treatment just suggest someone else could provide a better service. If she had given a name of this someone else it would be called a referral.

2nd. She is a Muslim I doubt she is taking an oath that begins with swearing by all the gods and goddesses.

3rd its not binding because there are many different versions of it, because it has been politicized since abortion (well some before as some viewed surgery as harmful).

She didn't refuse to treat them, or at least she claims she didn't. Her story is that she advised them to find a doctor that had experience treating lesbians. It really sounds less like malice and more like very strange ignorance. Very, very strange ignorance.

"Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" - mangled, I think, I apologise.

2nd. She is a Muslim

Source?

Yes, there are many different versions of the Oath, but most (if not all) state to treat friend and foe alike.

Source?

educated guess her name is خوري (Elias or Elijah when written in Latin letters).
Normally only used as a Family name by believers.
sort of like talking to a Hispanic named Jesus. 95% certain he is christian. and 99% certain he is at least from a christian family.

Yes, there are many different versions of the Oath, but most (if not all) state to treat friend and foe alike.

She did not refuse treatment just acknowledged her discomfort with the issue.

She did not refuse treatment just acknowledged her discomfort with the issue.

That is either a form of discrimination
or
a lack of education.

I find both to be inexcusable in a doctor in this country.

Oh dear, before we get stuck in a loop lets examine this closer:
1: Doctors are to treat patients without bias.
2: She is a doctor.
3: She met the patient before referring to another doctor.
4: Reason; She claimed discomfort with lesbians.
5: The referal was not required.
6: Do you think She would have agreed to treatment if She had no idea of the patient's sexuality?

If you answered yes to number six then it sounds a lot like refusal.

That is either a form of discrimination
or
a lack of education.

I find both to be inexcusable in a doctor in this country.

Discomfort is a feeling, doctors have feelings.
you have likely been treated by a homophobic doctor and don't even realize it.
She was just honest about it.
think about it like this. emergency room setting boy comes in from a car crash Doctor is about to operate then stops after she sees his face she says i am uncomfortable this is my son. then it turns out there is no other doctors available so she does it anyways.
comfort is a factor in medical care both for the patient and the doctor. She finished her exam and suggested they would be better served by another doctor.

6: Do you think She would have agreed to treatment if She had no idea of the patient's sexuality?

If you answered yes to number six then it sounds a lot like refusal.

She was willing to treat them knowing their sexuality.

Crap. What a moron. Who knew Canada had assholes, too?

Crap. What a moron. Who knew Canada had assholes, too?

Harper doesn't count? :D

Harper doesn't count? :D
No. Politicians are often, by definition, morons. :D

I notice she trained for four years in Egypt. Coupled with her religion, it seems highly likely this is more a case of ignorance brought on by cultural upbringing rather than full out malice.

Still ridiculous though.

A=A.

And no matter what universe he calls home...

Luthor is Luthor.

(Cookie for whoever gets the reference)

She didn't refuse to treat them she suggested they find another doctor.

That is refusing to provide treatment. If you want to be a doctor, leave your bigotry at home. No saying find another doctor because you're black, gay, a communist, or even a bit terrorist looking (its ok if they're really terrorist looking)

educated guess her name is خوري (Elias or Elijah when written in Latin letters).
Normally only used as a Family name by believers.
sort of like talking to a Hispanic named Jesus. 95% certain he is christian. and 99% certain he is at least from a christian family.

My first name is Jedidiah, another name for Solomon. What's that tell you about me?

A) Catholic
B) Jewish
C) Atheist queer
D) None of the above.

And no matter what universe he calls home...

Luthor is Luthor.

(Cookie for whoever gets the reference)

That is the Question.

That is the Question.

*Hands Khadgar a cookie.*

My dream:

All the silly and bigoted "conscience clause" statutes are implemented, and then doctors begin declining to fill Viagra prescriptions for heterosexual men.

And no matter what universe he calls home...

Luthor is Luthor.

(Cookie for whoever gets the reference)


what kind of name is "the question" anyway? It doesn't exactly inspire fear. "Oh no, it's the dastardly villian, exclamation point!"

My dream:

All the silly and bigoted "conscience clause" statutes are implemented, and then doctors begin declining to fill Viagra prescriptions for heterosexual men.

My dream:

No silly bigoted "conscience clause" statutes are implemented, and then doctors are forced to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS or lose their licenses and die a slow and painful death of starvation and cold due to inability to earn any money to eat or live anywhere.

I'm not a nice person.

what kind of name is "the question" anyway? It doesn't exactly inspire fear. "Oh no, it's the dastardly villian, exclamation point!"

That's because The Question isn't the punctuation mark, it's the act of asking.

My first name is Jedidiah, another name for Solomon. What's that tell you about me?

A) Catholic
B) Jewish
C) Atheist queer
D) None of the above.



D) none of the above, it tells me you founded the town where Bart Simpson lives.

D) none of the above, it tells me you founded the town where Bart Simpson lives.

Bzzt! Wrong!

That's be Jebediah SPRINGFIELD.

There's no indication she's a Christian here, it really seems to be someone from another culture not knowing quite how to deal with a new experience, namely lesbian patients.

I'm inclined to give the doctor a little leeway, we harvest good medical staff from developing countries, drop them in Manitoba and are then surprised when they have certain cultural issues.

I'm sure she's learned her lesson.

They aren't good medical staff if they don't know that you treat lesbians exactly as you would treat any other patient. This doctor apparently missed something fundamental in her classes...

They aren't good medical staff if they don't know that you treat lesbians exactly as you would treat any other patient. This doctor apparently missed something fundamental in her classes...

She probably thinks Lesbians have to see a veterinarian.

educated guess her name is خوري (Elias or Elijah when written in Latin letters).
Those two names are distinctly and completely different names.
They aren't good medical staff if they don't know that you treat lesbians exactly as you would treat any other patient. This doctor apparently missed something fundamental in her classes...

Eh....I agree with this, but so far nothing here says to me malicious intent. I think she should be scolded for ignorance and have it explained that homosexuals do not, in fact, possess different anatomies than heterosexuals. If it's shown that she's completely aware of this then, yes, perhaps something harsher may be required.

Discomfort is a feeling, doctors have feelings.
you have likely been treated by a homophobic doctor and don't even realize it.
She was just honest about it.


Would you be equally comfortable with a doctor who suggested that a black person get another doctor because he didn't know how to treat black people and felt uncomfortable around them?


She probably thinks Lesbians have to see a veterinarian.

Ouch.

Eh....I agree with this, but so far nothing here says to me malicious intent. I think she should be scolded for ignorance and have it explained that homosexuals do not, in fact, possess different anatomies than heterosexuals. If it's shown that she's completely aware of this then, yes, perhaps something harsher may be required.

Malice or not, she shouldn't be practicing medicine if she doesn't know these things.

...have it explained that homosexuals do not, in fact, possess different anatomies than heterosexuals.

This is the problem.

The article also makes a point about doctors that have never done pelvic exams, 'because they aren't allowed in some cultures'.

Well, guess what... we're not talking about 'some other cultures'. If you're not qualified to do the job, or don't want to, then don't do it.

Sure, it might be a simple matter of not enough doctors... but the best way to fix that problem is to fix the root causes, not scour the world for half-way decent alternatives. (And, thinking about it, if you're going to accept half-way decent alternatives, why not just make it easier to become a doctor, and employ Canadians? If you're going to be half-assed, at least be half-assed and constructive to your own employment market).

She says she "doesn't know how to treat lesbians", which such a bizarre statement. It's like she imagines they're physically different or something.

I think no matter what my sexual orientation, I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who thinks that lesbians per definition need special medical care.
Who knows what other strange idea that woman might have about medical science?

I notice she trained for four years in Egypt. Coupled with her religion, it seems highly likely this is more a case of ignorance brought on by cultural upbringing rather than full out malice.

Still ridiculous though.

yep specially the part at the end of the article where she claims "they have sexual diseases" . . . yah . . .the same one everyone else has. Honestly that's that part that shocked me the most , my votes in for moron.

This is the problem.

The article also makes a point about doctors that have never done pelvic exams, 'because they aren't allowed in some cultures'.

Well, guess what... we're not talking about 'some other cultures'. If you're not qualified to do the job, or don't want to, then don't do it.

Sure, it might be a simple matter of not enough doctors... but the best way to fix that problem is to fix the root causes, not scour the world for half-way decent alternatives. (And, thinking about it, if you're going to accept half-way decent alternatives, why not just make it easier to become a doctor, and employ Canadians? If you're going to be half-assed, at least be half-assed and constructive to your own employment market).
There are some highly qualified doctors out there who are driving cabs in Toronto as well . .. I think the canadian medical board may need to do a rethink on its qualifications for doctors from abroad.

yep specially the part at the end of the article where she claims "they have sexual diseases" . . . yah . . .the same one everyone else has. Honestly that's that part that shocked me the most , my votes in for moron.

And, actually, lesbians are at a lower risk for STDs than heterosexual women.

And, actually, lesbians are at a lower risk for STDs than heterosexual women.

exactly

That is refusing to provide treatment. If you want to be a doctor, leave your bigotry at home. No saying find another doctor because you're black, gay, a communist, or even a bit terrorist looking (its ok if they're really terrorist looking)

But you're missing it. She didn't refer them to another Doctor because she hated them or because she didn't approve of their lifestyle choice. She advised them to go see another Doctor because she genuinely believed that there were certain differences required in treating homosexuals that she wasn't familiar with. In short, she referred them because she thought another Doctor may be able to do a better job than her.

Let's not drag her character through the mud here. This has nothing to do with bigotry, only ignorance whether through stupidity or an extremely sheltered life.

This is the problem.

The article also makes a point about doctors that have never done pelvic exams, 'because they aren't allowed in some cultures'.

Well, guess what... we're not talking about 'some other cultures'. If you're not qualified to do the job, or don't want to, then don't do it.

Sure, it might be a simple matter of not enough doctors... but the best way to fix that problem is to fix the root causes, not scour the world for half-way decent alternatives. (And, thinking about it, if you're going to accept half-way decent alternatives, why not just make it easier to become a doctor, and employ Canadians? If you're going to be half-assed, at least be half-assed and constructive to your own employment market).

Why not just have a check for the common ignorances, and offer to correct them or not employ these people; allow them to practice, even, while they're being properly educated so long as people are aware that, you know, this doctor is unable to perform a pelvic exam?

I assume if you go to a doctor and say, hey I need a pelvic exam the doctor is going to say, well I don't know how to do those, go to such and such doctor who does. Why is that a problem?

But you're missing it. She didn't refer them to another Doctor because she hated them or because she didn't approve of their lifestyle choice. She advised them to go see another Doctor because she genuinely believed that there were certain differences required in treating homosexuals that she wasn't familiar with. In short, she referred them because she thought another Doctor may be able to do a better job than her.

Let's not drag her character through the mud here. This has nothing to do with bigotry, only ignorance whether through stupidity or an extremely sheltered life.

You know, in a doctor I find that HIGHLY worrying.

I think no matter what my sexual orientation, I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who thinks that lesbians per definition need special medical care.
Who knows what other strange idea that woman might have about medical science?

My medical knowledge is rather limited, the most complicated thing I'm capable of doing is starting an IV, but even I'm aware of that.

This has nothing to do with bigotry, only ignorance whether through stupidity or an extremely sheltered life.

You might be right. I hope your right.

But I have a hard time believing your right. Ive never been one to assume stupidity over malice in cases like this.

And, actually, lesbians are at a lower risk for STDs than heterosexual women.

Though it should be noted that they have a higher chance of breast cancer. Which isn't a sexually transmitted disease. Too bad no one took the time to explain the difference to this doc.

My medical knowledge is rather limited, the most complicated thing I'm capable of doing is starting an IV, but even I'm aware of that.

You mean starting an IV for a lesbian isn't completely different?

You mean starting an IV for a lesbian isn't completely different?

Actually, it is. If a lesbian stares at an IV, and you are holding it, you catch the gays.

thought through Hypocratic Oath they where meant to treat a person no matter who or what they are

You know, in a doctor I find that HIGHLY worrying.

As well you should. I'm not trying to defend her competence, it's a little late for that. I'm just trying to defend her from half the forum's knee-jerk reaction of screaming "BIGOT! BIGOT!", without actually reading the article.

As well you should. I'm not trying to defend her competence, it's a little late for that. I'm just trying to defend her from half the forum's knee-jerk reaction of screaming "BIGOT! BIGOT!", without actually reading the article.

It actually kinda depends on which story you believe. The couple claims that she told them she wouldn't feel comfortable treating them because of her religious beliefs and then added that she doesn't know how to treat lesbians. She only claims to have said the latter.

You mean starting an IV for a lesbian isn't completely different?

It is, but we're trained to deal with that.

Actually, it is. If a lesbian stares at an IV, and you are holding it, you catch the gays.

Bingo. That's also why you wear rubber gloves when administering IVs, to ensure you don't catch the gay.

As well you should. I'm not trying to defend her competence, it's a little late for that. I'm just trying to defend her from half the forum's knee-jerk reaction of screaming "BIGOT! BIGOT!", without actually reading the article.

I have a hard time believing it's just ignorance. I'd imagine it would be difficult to go through medical school, learning about how the human body functions and the various things that can go wrong, and maintaining a bizarre belief like this.

It's like being a certified mechanic and actually believing that red cars go faster.

Why not just have a check for the common ignorances, and offer to correct them or not employ these people; allow them to practice, even, while they're being properly educated so long as people are aware that, you know, this doctor is unable to perform a pelvic exam?

I assume if you go to a doctor and say, hey I need a pelvic exam the doctor is going to say, well I don't know how to do those, go to such and such doctor who does. Why is that a problem?

The question that leaps out to me, then - why is it so hard to become a doctor here, if we're going to allow what are effectively part-qualified candidates from elesewhere?

You're effectively talking about just that - letting someone who can't do the job - do the job while they pick up some new skills/information. If we're going to allow that, why not lower the grades required for our own doctors, and let them 'learn on the job'?

If you Google her name she is rate as fair by RateMDs.com. She has had a lot of bad reports.

I think I would rather know if a doctor was uncomfortable treating me for any reason. Assuming the said procedure was not life threatening. Then I have the choice make the doctor treat me anyway, or find a new doctor.

My first name is Jedidiah, another name for Solomon. What's that tell you about me?
That your native country has a Judeo-Christian cultural history.
Those two names [Elias and Elijah] are distinctly and completely different names.
That is incorrect. "Elias" is just how "Elijah" got spelled in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

She studied in the University of Cairo. If we assume that she grew up in Egypt, she is probably a Muslim or a Coptic Xian.

That your native country has a Judeo-Christian cultural history.

That is incorrect. "Elias" is just how "Elijah" got spelled in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

The name he wrote in Arabic was not Eliayhu or its Arabicized equivalent. I know that Elias and Elijah are the same and both are...what, a Hellenization and a Latinization of Eliyahu?

I'm just trying to defend her from half the forum's knee-jerk reaction of screaming "BIGOT! BIGOT!", without actually reading the article.

Well... her ignorance about lesbians causes her to make dumb statements about them, and needlessly influences her actions towards them... surely that does make her a bigot. Not a jabbering, placard-waving, 'all gays are teh ebil' bigot, but still a bigot.

The question that leaps out to me, then - why is it so hard to become a doctor here, if we're going to allow what are effectively part-qualified candidates from elesewhere?

You're effectively talking about just that - letting someone who can't do the job - do the job while they pick up some new skills/information. If we're going to allow that, why not lower the grades required for our own doctors, and let them 'learn on the job'?

there is a reason why it's called a 'practice'. :p

My friend once said.

Each year, there are Doctors out there who graduated with barely passing grades. and someone out there has an appointment with one of them...

It actually kinda depends on which story you believe. The couple claims that she told them she wouldn't feel comfortable treating them because of her religious beliefs and then added that she doesn't know how to treat lesbians. She only claims to have said the latter.

And yet if her objection to treating them truly came from religious fervor, isn't it odd that she'd claim it was for another reason? You'd think she'd proudly proclaim her faith from the heavens or something.

At the very least you'd expect a better cover story. No, I'd say the fact that her version of the story hardly puts her in a better light suggests that it's true.

Well... her ignorance about lesbians causes her to make dumb statements about them, and needlessly influences her actions towards them... surely that does make her a bigot. Not a jabbering, placard-waving, 'all gays are teh ebil' bigot, but still a bigot.

The definition of bigot that I'm using is: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, class, or orientation.

The question that leaps out to me, then - why is it so hard to become a doctor here, if we're going to allow what are effectively part-qualified candidates from elesewhere?


It's just a shortage of doctors its also a shortage doctors who will work in Manitoba.

And yet if her objection to treating them truly came from religious fervor, isn't it odd that she'd claim it was for another reason? You'd think she'd proudly proclaim her faith from the heavens or something.

At the very least you'd expect a better cover story. No, I'd say the fact that her version of the story hardly puts her in a better light suggests that it's true.

Makes no odds to me why she acted this way. What bothers me most is that a doctor can be so wrong, on a point of fundamental medical knowledge.


The definition of bigot that I'm using is: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, class, or orientation.

As far as I can see, she is a prejudiced person, and she is intolerant of people of different orientation. Not the worst case of intolerance you'll ever see, but bad enough to cause a doctor to make a medically incorrect decision.

With due apologies for using a rather tired debating tactic, let me re-write a section of the OP article a little...

'Elias told the Free Press she has no experience treating blacks and Asians who sometimes have "sexual problems" and other diseases. Elias practised medicine in Egypt before spending four years in Steinbach and said she's never treated blacks or Asians in her two decades as a physician.

"They get a lot of diseases and infections," Elias said during a phone interview. "I didn't refuse to treat them, I said it's better to find someone who has experience and will take this type of patients. There (are) some doctors who can treat them."'

Makes no odds to me why she acted this way. What bothers me most is that a doctor can be so wrong, on a point of fundamental medical knowledge.

Right, and if she really did refuse to treat them on the grounds that they were lesbian, I can't see why she'd try to cover it up by claiming that she sucks at medicine.

As far as I can see, she is a prejudiced person, and she is intolerant of people of different orientation. Not the worst case of intolerance you'll ever see, but bad enough to cause a doctor to make a medically incorrect decision.

Prejudice and intolerance implies to me at least, that she's made a conscious decision that they're inferior or not as good. But that doesn't seem to match up with her side of the story which is really too pathetic to be a lie.

With due apologies for using a rather tired debating tactic, let me re-write a section of the OP article a little...

'Elias told the Free Press she has no experience treating blacks and Asians who sometimes have "sexual problems" and other diseases. Elias practised medicine in Egypt before spending four years in Steinbach and said she's never treated blacks or Asians in her two decades as a physician.

"They get a lot of diseases and infections," Elias said during a phone interview. "I didn't refuse to treat them, I said it's better to find someone who has experience and will take this type of patients. There (are) some doctors who can treat them."'

And? I don't see how this changes anything. Whether she was indoctrinated by a culture hostile to homosexuals or just an idiot, she genuinely believes that their anatomy is different and that she's not up to the task. She probably thought she was helping them, really.

Right, and if she really did refuse to treat them on the grounds that they were lesbian, I can't see why she'd try to cover it up by claiming that she sucks at medicine.

She didn't claim to suck at medicine. She claimed that treating lesbians is a job for a specialist doctor. When asked why, she announced that lesbians have lots of diseases. If people want to call that bigotry, I have a hard time disagreeing with them.


Prejudice and intolerance implies to me at least, that she's made a conscious decision that they're inferior or not as good. But that doesn't seem to match up with her side of the story which is really too pathetic to be a lie.

She may not have used the words 'inferior', or 'not as good' but she's certainly implied them pretty clearly.


And? I don't see how this changes anything.

So you don't think the person making that statement is a bigot?


Whether she was indoctrinated by a culture hostile to homosexuals or just an idiot, she genuinely believes that their anatomy is different and that she's not up to the task. She probably thought she was helping them, really.

Yep, her prejudice is based on an honestly held belief. That doesn't make it any less of a prejudice.

She didn't claim to suck at medicine. She claimed that treating lesbians is a job for a specialist doctor. When asked why, she announced that lesbians have lots of diseases. If people want to call that bigotry, I have a hard time disagreeing with them.



She may not have used the words 'inferior', or 'not as good' but she's certainly implied them pretty clearly.



So you don't think the person making that statement is a bigot?



Yep, her prejudice is based on an honestly held belief. That doesn't make it any less of a prejudice.

While it's true that prejudice and bigotry simply denote a decision made before learning all the relevant facts, but those words usually hold the connotation of malicious intent and not simple ignorance.

I don't honestly believe it's the former in this case. Although I don't really think it's simple ignorance either.

So it's a choice between her being a bigot who should lose her license or an idiot who should lose her license.
And she should lose her license for either of these, why?

She seems unable to do her job because of the bizarre idea that lesbian women need to be treated as if they are a different species from straight women, with bizarre diseases that only lesbians get.

While it's true that prejudice and bigotry simply denote a decision made before learning all the relevant facts, but those words usually hold the connotation of malicious intent and not simple ignorance.

Hang on - bigotry and prejudice are attitudes, not actions. Whether they act upon their bigotry and prejudice is another matter.

Nor do bigotry and prejudice require malice. Suppose someone thinks that black people are mentally inferior, to the extent that the best thing for them is to restrict their rights and freedoms to keep them safe. That person has a bigoted attitude, even if they genuinely believe what they are saying.

(Sorry, it's gone 1.30am and I have work tomorrow. It's been an interesting debate, thanks. Might be back on some time tomorrow if you want to continue.)

Hang on - bigotry and prejudice are attitudes, not actions. Whether they act upon their bigotry and prejudice is another matter.

I concede this point.

Nor do bigotry and prejudice require malice. Suppose someone thinks that black people are mentally inferior, to the extent that the best thing for them is to restrict their rights and freedoms to keep them safe. That person has a bigoted attitude, even if they genuinely believe what they are saying.

True, although I can't help but feel that there's a fundamental difference between:

"I'm restricting your rights because they're dangerous and you wouldn't know how to use them properly."

And

"I'm referring you to another Doctor because lesbians have a bunch of diseased that straight people don't, and quite frankly I don't think I know how to treat them."

It's almost as though she has some sort of self-confidence issue or something. :p

(Sorry, it's gone 1.30am and I have work tomorrow. It's been an interesting debate, thanks. Might be back on some time tomorrow if you want to continue.)

I'm honestly not convinced that we're really saying different things here, but sure.

Each year, there are Doctors out there who graduated with barely passing grades. and someone out there has an appointment with one of them...

...which totally doesn't worry me.

Given how hard it is to get into the field anyway, even a passing grade has got to be pretty good, right?

What concerns me more is that - like teaching, medicine is wrapped up in the money and the qualifications. People who are perfectly suited to a caring profession... can be kept out of it, not by an inability to learn, but by not having the right grades.

This is why it annoys me so much when someone who doesn't give a fuck is getting the job despite being only partially qualified...

Raise your hands who saw this coming. (waves hands like he's directing a jet on a carrier) It's going to be interesting to see who comes out on top with the gold medal from the Sensitivity Olympics that's going to spring from this set of events.

And she should lose her license for either of these, why?

Because direct violation of the Hippocratic oath and complete incomprehension of how the human body works are both Really Not Okay traits in a doctor?

And she should lose her license for either of these, why?

because either she refused to see patients, which is in direct violation of her oath, or she is so utterly ignorant as to basic medicine, as to be rendered incapable of adequately serving as a doctor.

If I said to someone "I'm sorry, I can't be your lawyer, because you're black, and we all know black people need to go to special courts, and I don't have any experience in those courts", I deserve to be disbarred.

And she should lose her license for either of these, why?

Not that bigots and idiots in general deserve to work as anything but the lowliest kinds of job, but I'll point out that she either made a choice that's not hers to make - not to treat someone based on sexual option - or she lacks basic knowledge for her trade.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/lesbians_a_mystery_to_city_md_complaint_filed_heres_what_could_happen38441529.html

Long story short: Doctor has no idea how to treat lesbians because they are infested with all sorts of gay diseases. Also, homosexuality is against her religion so it is obviously impossible to treat them regardless.


How the fuck does some one who is actively willingly to and interested in discriminating against people decide to go into a profession where their prescribed job is to help people regardless of any problems? "Oh, I don't like gays, I refuse to treat them medically." "I don't agree with abortion, no contraceptives for you." Then get a different fucking job then.
I agree with the conclusion. The doc should have been smart enough to say, "I have too many patients right now, try one of these docs". That would have ended the issue. Unfortunately, this pair of professional victims has decided that a case in court is financially preferable to just changing their choice of doctor.

I agree with the conclusion. The doc should have been smart enough to say, "I have too many patients right now, try one of these docs". That would have ended the issue. Unfortunately, this pair of professional victims has decided that a case in court is financially preferable to just changing their choice of doctor.

Didn't the article say they had changed their doctor?

Professional victims? Based on what - one discrimination claim? That counts as 'professional victim' in your lexicon?

But you avoid the actual issue - this person is in breach of the laws that say you can't discriminate. Whether she covered it up by lying (as you suggest), or admits her failing is irrelevent.

So - how about addressing the actual issue?

I agree with the conclusion. The doc should have been smart enough to say, "I have too many patients right now, try one of these docs".
Yes, better to break the law than admit to vast ignorance that could get you fired.
That would have ended the issue.
Maybe if by sheer coincidence no other lesbian ever makes an appointment with this doctor.

And if she's legitimately ignorant about how one goes about treating lesbians then maybe she'd do the responsible thing(from her point of view) and start checking around to see if there are any doctors she can refer her lesbian patients to. Much like what she'd do if faced with a patient that needed to see an oncologist
Unfortunately, this pair of professional victims
And your basis for calling them this is what?
has decided that a case in court is financially preferable to just changing their choice of doctor.

Yes, yes it would be. What if they had been black, or Jewish, or in the military, or French? Even if the doctor's bigotry is born out of mind boggling ignorance it's still bigotry and still illegal.

What kind of doctor refuses medical treatment because of someone's sexuality? She should lose her license

Government licensure is not a legitimate requirement for practicing medicine.

The only legitimate requirement is "someone's willing to let me treat him."

Government licensure is not a legitimate requirement for practicing medicine.

The only legitimate requirement is "someone's willing to let me treat him."

'legitimate' or not... it is a LEGAL requirement.

Because direct violation of the Hippocratic oath and complete incomprehension of how the human body works are both Really Not Okay traits in a doctor?

Ah, let it be my turn to stick something into an anthill now.

While I'm quoting Poliwanacraca, this post is general rather than specific reply.

Hippocratic Oath... Maybe an Egyptian interpretation - I read there are various interpretations, depending on where and when - allows for such things. Unless by arriving in Canada she agreed to obey the Canadian one, in which case I have no more objections. By the way, Hippocratic Oath forbids to perform an abortion (I wonder how would NSG react if someone refused performing one because of it, nyah, nyah, nyah).

The second issue is that the Doc studied, practised and spent most of her life in Egypt, submerged in a different, Islamic and conservative culture. This time, however, my claims would be refuted too quickly. The only thing I could possibly do is to resort to trollish questions like "where are those, who claim not liking someone's culture is the new form of racism", or some other anti-immigration trollism. Answer them at will, if anyone feels like polishing his/her rhetoric today.

[edit]
Ah, whatever. Don't bother reading it.