Re: Physician choice
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Tue Jul 12 15:33:18 2005
Far better to ask the questions before introducing technology ... Just
my opinion, I could be wrong.
art
At Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Dr. Ainsworth wrote:
>
>This is similar to the situation we discussed previously with the
>pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception based on
>their religous beliefs. On the other hand, I think it is different,
>because ART requires active participation in the process, much like the
>active involvement of a physician in performing abortions. I don't
>think either could be forced on a physician, nurse or other healthcare
>professional. But how about the pharmacist filling the prescription for
>the drugs used in ART? If he knew the couples sexual orientation or
>marital status, would he be protected in refusing to fill the
>prescriptions? I don't know.
>
>Citing the state constitution and its protections of religious beliefs,
>the California Medical Association recently filed an amicus brief in a
>San Diego case asking that a jury determine whether two physicians
>should face liability for declining to perform a fertility treatment for
>an unmarried couple.
>
>The case, Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, has
>sparked a smear campaign against CMA by the Gay and Lesbian Medical
>Association (GLMA), which has deliberately misrepresented the CMA
>position and its legal arguments in news releases and in websites and
>other media outlets that serve the gay and lesbian community.
>
>In its brief, CMA points out that it does not support discrimination
>based on sex, race, sexual orientation or other invidious grounds. The
>brief also declares that religious beliefs cannot be used to justify
>discrimination that would otherwise be illegal, such as rejecting
>patients on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
>
>Noting that the facts in the case are complex, CMA asked that a trial
>court or jury decide whether the physicians’ decision is a subterfuge
>for discrimination against the couple because they are lesbians or is
>based on legitimate religious grounds. The law under which these
>doctors are being sued—the Unruh Act—does not bar marital status
>discrimination. It bars such discrimination based on sexual
>orientation, sex, religion, or race.
>
>The physicians involved claim that their religious beliefs bar them from
>providing the fertility treatment to all unmarried couples and that they
>have applied this equally in their practice.
>
>“This was a very difficult decision for CMA,” says CMA CEO Jack Lewin,
>M.D. “CMA does not support discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual
>orientation, but physicians should not be forced to provide treatment
>that goes against nondiscriminatory religious values. Our policy is
>clear on this. It is important that the facts in this case be judged at
>trial.”
>
>Dr. Lewin said CMA leadership “understands this issue has ignited
>passions. But this deliberate campaign to misrepresent our position and
>harm CMA is wrong.” He urged those who have been provided misleading
>information to read the CMA friend-of-the-court brief.
>
>The executive director of GLMA, the San Francisco-based group opposing
>CMA, has demanded that “CMA withdraw its brief and told CMA it would
>launch a campaign against CMA in the press if we did not,” said Dr.
>Lewin.
>
>That campaign began several weeks ago and included distribution last
>week of a news release headlined: “GLMA Urges California Medical
>Association to Withdraw Support for Doctors who Discriminate; CMA
>defends actions of physicians who refused care on basis of sexual
>orientation.”
>
>The San Francisco Chronicle last week declined to publish an article
>based on the GLMA news release after reading CMA’s brief and talking
>with CMA officials.
--
art fougner, md
"If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."
Lawrence Peter Berra
