Posted on 02/21/2015 6:59:22 PM PST by daniel1212
Two Michigan parents said that a local doctor recently refused to see their six-day-old child because they are lesbians, the Detroit Free Press reported Wednesday...
Jami and Krista Contreras said they made an appointment with pediatrician Vesna Roi at the advice of their midwife, according to television station WJBK. But when they brought their daughter for an appointment with the pediatrician, they said they were met by another doctor who told them that Roi would not treat a baby with two mothers, according to the Free Press.
Roi sent a letter of apology to the parents, later acquired by the Free Press, in which she explained: "After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients." She added, "Please know that I believe God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice."
Although the incident happened in late 2014, the couple only recently decided to speak about it, according to the Free Press.
Exactly!
“The child’s entitled to any care he/she needs. “
Do you mean to say that this child is somehow entitled to the labor of this doctor even though he doesn’t want to provide it? You might want to think that all the way through.
No one is entitled to the labor of another for any reason.
L
I find this story, as presented, VERY difficult to believe.
I think that is completely and totally wrong.
Do you think doctors should refuse to treat smokers?
Now, there is a little bit of truth in the "worldview" part - if a person with an infection doesn't believe in germs, for example.
But if I didn't treat anyone who didn't share my basic values and worldview, I'd be out of business, and if you post here frequently, so would you.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this was another set up by lesbians. Looking around to find a doctor who they thought would refuse their child and then pushing the issue.
It wouldn’t be the first time something like that happened.
Isn't that what she did by refusing to treat their kid?
Indirectly by implication perhaps if unseen by her, and she would be right in doing so, but besides there being no actual treatment (just a check up), nor examination that was denied by her - only that it was transferred to another doctor - due to her correct judgment that homosexual relations are immoral, her judgment was more that of her inability to provide the best care, which she arranged for. In so doing, she is protecting herself from violating her conscience, yet paradoxically in her love for the family she is also doing what she feels is best for them. It is indeed a hard choice for one with a strong conscience.
If you read the letter linked letter at the source (parts of which the MSM leaves out) then you can see her expressed motive was what was best for them and their child.
"After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients. I felt that was not fair to the two of you or to Bay. I felt that you deserved that type of relationship and I knew you could could get that with Dr. Karam.
We do not keep prenatal information once we have out meeting so i had no way to contact you. I found out the Monday morning that you were coming and I made the decision that it would be better for Dr. Karam to see Bay. I felt that it was an exciting time for the two of you and and I felt that if I came in and shared my decision then it would take away much of the excitement .
That was my mistake. I should have spoken to you directly that day. You were always welcome in our office and I assumed that you would continue care at our office with Dr. Karam.
Please know that I believe God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice.
Again, I am very sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope you can accept my apology. I wish you all the best.
Blessings, Dr. Veina Roi.
Thus we have a doctor who wants the best for the Biblically perverse family, and is gracious to them at their meeting, but upon prayerful consideration feels she cannot develop the relationship with them (the tendency of homosexual activists to insist everyone affirm their iniquity would not help), but cannot contact them, but after they contact her office she therefore arranges another doc to care for them.
But which liberals portray as if the child was neglected treatment and demand the doctor respect and support a perverse union and family. But in so doing they utterly reject the doctors beliefs and preferences, as they want to compel all to salute the flag of Sodom, so to speak.
Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. (Daniel 3:7)
So according to your construance, what actually happened her in the light of the evidence?
Such a one is rare today.
Love for the family? Come on. I'm not suggesting that her actions placed the health and welfare of the kid at risk, and I don't suggest that it isn't her right to decide who to have as her patients and who not. But let's not suggest that her motivation was anything but disgust for them and their lifestyle.
Indeed, IF "treatment" was a matter of a program of pursuing a program of holistic health and they insisted chain smoking is good and healthy, or that being obese was, etc. , while the doctor held strong convictions otherwise.
But not as denying needed actually treatment.
For as with other analogies the objectors use, this one does not fit, as no actual treatment was denied, and instead examination was simply transferred to another doctor with no delay, in the interest of providing the best care (read letter above).
Thus you need to find another analogy. ,. the while - but not . Likewise those who think homosexual relations are, and
So now you say she is lying, as too much like liberals, you cannot conceive of a Christian struggling to deal with Biblical conviction that they should not foster an immoral arrangement or life, while Christian love also wants the best for the person?
I have faced that often. For instance my former landlady took up separation from he husband (a nice man) and living with another man. I told them it was wrong, but would try to help them in ways i hoped did not infer sanction of their relationship. One time they asked me to help them move a new mattress to their house. And i wrongly did, but then said i was not going to take it upstairs.
I have had people ask me to fix their computer, while the reason it was infested with viruses was because of the immoral sites they visited. I want to help them, but probably should not, unless perhaps at least they promise me to stop using the PC for that purpose.
Well you were the one who assumed that she took her actions out of "love". That term is nowhere to be found in her letter to the parents of the kid. Just "Sorry I didn't tell you earlier that I refuse to see you" and "You're welcome in our office, just not to see me" and so on and so forth. And again I support her right to do so, as I support the right of the Oregon baker and the Washington florist to serve whatever clientele they choose. But I just can't grasp the concept of "I love you so much I refuse to have anything to do with you or your kid" that you seem to see in this whole affair.
First of all,I made that statement with the assumption that the physician in question would be financially compensated in some mutually agreeable way.And with that having been stipulated be aware that physicians take an oath..an oath that you've probably at least heard of if not fully understand.And that oath doesn't provide exceptions for people of whose parents the physician doesn't approve.In fact,one could easily argue that the duty that that physician has to that patient is *greater* because of the potential harm he/she might suffer at the hands of pervert "parents".
If this woman didn't agree with the oath that she knew she'd be taking upon graduation from medical school she could have become an accountant.Unless I'm mistaken accountants don't have a moral responsibility to take on a particular client.As an accountant she'd have no moral or professional responsibility to do the tax returns of these perverts.
I have no problem whatsoever with this physician being repulsed by these perverts.But she's punishing the child for the sins of the "parents".
Jami and Krista Contreras said they made an appointment with pediatrician Vesna Roi at the advice of their midwife,
...
Most likely the midwife knew what would happen and this was a setup.
I don't think Muslims are all that thrilled with homosexuals either.
I agree with you that the doctor should have the right to accept or deny patients for whatever reason. I looked up this doctor on Healthgrades. She had a pretty low rating from a patient perspective, so keep looking, ladies. I am sure there is someone out there who won’t care that you are trying to raise a child without a father and that child will have problems that other children won’t have who are raised by two parents of the opposite sex.
http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-vesna-roi-2hw77/patient-ratings#TopOfMain
“irst of all,I made that statement with the assumption that the physician in question would be financially compensated in some mutually agreeable way.”
That assumption was incorrect.
Nothing in the Oath requires a physician to care for everyone who asks for it, either.
So you can not allow her motivation as being loving since he reasons for transferring care was that "I would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients. I felt that was not fair to the two of you or to Bay. I felt that you deserved that type of relationship and I knew you could could get that with Dr. Karam."
But I just can't grasp the concept of "I love you so much I refuse to have anything to do with you or your kid" that you seem to see in this whole affair.
She never refused to give any needed care, but deferred a "wellness" check and any further visits to another doctor at no delay or inconvenience to them. I am sorry that you cannot grasp the concept of this being what was loving when otherwise it would almost surely result in conflict and stress, such as them pressuring her to affirm their union and homosexual rearing, or of them objecting to Christian aspects of her care (praying for the child?), and which she felt she could not submit to, then thus indeed it would be better to have someone else handle it.
In addition, i think i recall that the doctor engaged in a kind of holistic care, and a pediatrician's care can continue up to 18 years of age. Meanwhile, the lesbian parents will (ab)normally raise that innocent child to be a homosexual, or inclined to be so. Don't you think conflict would develop, and that it was best to prevent attempting a working relationship with that family rather than have to break ir off later or endure a rocky one, with possible lawsuits?
Even if a liberal flag burning antiwar activist brought his truck, which driven in his protest parades, into a conservative patriot body shop worker and said "I want to you to customize my truck," I think that at least for the sake of the good truck he might want to let his liberal mechanic take care for it instead.
But in reality he should be able to refuse any such service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.