Freedom of Conscience? Homosexuals Question Medical Care Freedom
Your Business Blogger(R) once worked in medical device start-ups teaching new surgical procedures to clinicians.
My physicians were constantly demanding the latest data on patient care and what would work best to improve patient care.
They taught me that they were held to higher standards because the clinical community was the steward of the public’s trust.
When a person is hurting, trust is the currency of the care giver.
The patient must believe that the doctor or nurse sincerely believes that the care given is the best — and that the care giver would not violate the trust of the patient or the care givers’ own conscience.
The public well understands that if a doctor will not violate his own conscience, he will not violate the patient.
This conscience clause of the medical community is being attacked by the homosexual activists. Homosexuals are demanding elective procedures — non-life saving interventions — medical attention that would violate the conscience of some clinicians.
And this is bad for business. Homosexuals are attempting to equate race with sexual preferences: attempting to make homosexuality a civil right.
The homosexual marketing campaign might be gaining traction in the courts — but not with voters, not with legislators not with common sense.
An African-American will always be black; he has no choice and cannot stop being black.
A homosexual may return to hertosexuality; he has a choice and can stop being homosexual.
African-Americans are of a particular race from conception. Homosexuals make a decision well after birth. They are not born in that state. There is no homosexual gene in the human DNA. Race is not equal to homosexuality.
Look for more cases like this one in California where the homosexual activists are looking for businesses to take to court. Your business might be next.
California Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Medical Care and Religious FreedomBy Matthew Eppinette | August 18, 2008
Chicago, Illinois — The California Supreme Court today ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious or moral beliefs.
Denise Burke, Vice President & Legal Director of Americans United for Life (AUL), said, “This ruling will deny physicians and other professionals the ability to freely exercise their religious convictions.”
Added Burke, “By forcing healthcare professionals to choose between conscience and career, we will lose doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are already in short supply.”
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., President and CEO of AUL added, “Medical experts already project that existing shortages of nurses, physicians, and pharmacists will soon worsen, failing to meet future healthcare needs. Legal action to compel healthcare providers to participate in procedures to which they conscientiously object threatens to make the already dangerous situation disastrous.”
Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, said, “It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. A diminished physician population is not good for medical care.”
The case — North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Benitez) – involves a situation where artificial insemination was not provided due to the marital status of the patient (Ms. Benitez).
Ms. Benitez filed suit arguing that she was not provided the procedure because she is a lesbian. However, the physicians testified that the real issue was her marital status, and that they would not have provided artificial insemination to any single woman.
Ultimately, Ms. Benitez received the procedure from another physician after receiving a referral from the objecting physicians (who paid the additional costs she incurred).
AUL filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Physicians for Life, arguing that federal and state law as well as the ethics standards of major medical organizations support the physicians’ right to conscientiously object to performing certain nonessential, elective medical procedures that conflict with physicians’ religious and moral beliefs.