Tattooed mom says doctor discriminated by not treating daughter

[TX-RAT]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5435858

[ixion]

1. when I got my (second) tattoo on my chest, my repub dad described as a

'desecration'.


I think that sums it up from that side of the aisle.

[notadmblnd]

2. You know what I tell people like that..

I don't think Jesus would turn his back on us because of our appearance. Remember, that Christ hung out with thieves and prostitutes, lepers and the poor. You have to cram their hypocrisy right back down their throats.

[TX-RAT]

3. Didn't Jesus have piercings?

[porphyrian]

10. Probably not. He was a Jew, and Orthodox Jews don't tatoo or pierce themselves.

He was a bit of a rebel, though, if he even existed in the first place, so who knows?

[Coventina]

17. LOL! Good one!

:thumbsup:

Jesus never refused attention to anyone. That Dr. needs to be drummed out of his profession.

[youthere]

31. oooh you bad!

:spank:

Keep it up! LOL!

[uppityperson]

4. What defines "profanity"?

"oh god why won't you see us" could be a curse or a prayer
"damn you" is a curse, though is it profane?

[Warpy]

5. I think most curses are prayer

as in "Hey god! Take a look at what's going on here!"

This doc needs to have his license pulled. His bigotry is inappropriate. Was the kid tattooed? Should it make that big a difference?

Anyway, tats are now mainstream for folks under 35. They're certainly no longer associated with addicts, prisoners and bikers in that age group.

I'm sick of the religiously fastidious refusing to DO THEIR JOBS because they want to force other people to live and think as they do.

[uppityperson]

7. Article says it is ok in non-emergency situations to not treat but refer elsewhere.

Sort of like going to a hospital and being sent away because you are poor, being sent to the poor peoples state run hospital, theoretically not in an emergency. I wonder if they got refered out and why this wasn't declared in need of emergency care? Probably urgent but not emergency (not bleeding or actively in the process of acticely dying, just hurting really bad)?

I too am tired of fundamentalists limiting what they do, and it sounds like these parents were pushing it, knowing what they did about the clinic (if article is correct). I wonder if they were trying to make a larger statement, though don't see why they would do this to their sick child. Will this doctor get less or more patients due to the publicity?

Doctors CAN limit their practices to whom THEY want to see, unless in an emergency. It may be unpleasant, but is a legal fact. So can dentists. Ask a parent who has a child on medicaid/medicare/whichever it is I can't remember.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Can a doctor refuse to treat black people?

[uppityperson]

9. Hmm. I don't know. That is a good question.

I am hoping you read my whole reply hooligan as while I do not agree with this practice, it happens and is legal and I've been the recipient of it also (low income with a child needing care when was sick and for dentist). It really pissed me off when it was my sick kid. I don't know about skin color, perhaps not since there is enough support for that vs poor or tattooed, though I don't know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Well, I'm guessing "no."

If the doctors are running a business, then they can't discriminate against their customers based on skin color.

Now, what is tattooing but customized skin coloring?

[uppityperson]

14. can't inherit them genetically.

It is something you do to yourself, or have someone do to you, usually voluntarily (tattoos). Skin color is just how you are. Black Like Me? I'm guessing no also but there is a difference between being born a color and modifying your color. How about deeply tanned. I am guessing no, unless you can figure out another reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. So?

People don't inherit religion either.

[uppityperson]

18. So you can't refuse to treat people for genetic/inherited/who they are stuff.

But by stuff they chose, like tattoos and body modifications. Now we get into can they refuse based on sexual orientation which I say no since that is basic to a person not a choice but their f*d up minds say is a choice.

What about pediatricians? Can they refuse to treat my 80 yr old parent? Specialites are different, they can limit more, but again need to treat in emergency cases.

I think it gets to what is the person vs what are the person's choices. I am looking for a word, a phrase, and can't figure it out (dang my brain). What do you call it when it is intrinsic to you? color, sex, age, etc

Again, I do not agree that it SHOULD be so, but it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. You can't discriminate based on skin color...

gender, disability (inherited or not), religion, and a host of other thinks, some inherited some not.

Why are you trying to make excuses?

[uppityperson]

20. You are missing what I am saying. Not excusing at all but explaining.

I DO NOT AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE THIS WAY, but it is. Got it? I have worked for yrs in the medical system, and have been on the outside looking in as an underemployed low income parent trying to do the best I can for my child. The system sucks. It is the Medical sytem, not the Health care system. Doctors can and do pick and chose their patients based on a number of factors, many of which I disagree with.

My first nursing job was at a low income hospital in large SW USA city. The quality of care was bad, but sightly better than nothing. If you had money, or the right skin color, you could be seen at the ER across town much more quickly and be treated much more nicely.

I do not think it is right but it is how it is. Please stop trying to put me on the side of "making excuses" and promoting this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. No, you're just making things up.

What on earth makes you think civil rights is limited to hereditary conditions?

[uppityperson]

23. What are you talking about "just making things up"?

I am puzzled by what you mean, what is going on here. Are you accusing me of lying or what? Seriously. We are having a communication problem here and I'd like to get it cleared up since it seems we have been on the same side of most issues and I am confused. Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. The idea that civil rights...

only protects the right for people not to be discriminated against based on inheritable traits?

[uppityperson]

26. No, not civil rights. Doctors can limit who they see.

That is a fact. A tacky but legal fact. I think, though would not testify to such, that they can limit due to a bunch of different things, but am NOT sure what all it extends to. I theorized that they cannot discriminate on skin color, then am mulling over what all they can pick and chose on. It does get odd.

A restaurant can say you need a coat and tie (if you are male) to eat there, but cannot say you must have a particular skin color. A doctor can say you need no tattoos to be treated, but cannot say you must have a particular skin color.

All I can figure is 1 is a basic biological characteristic that you have no control over (hence I used the words inherited), the other is 1 you have choice over (tattoos or coat/tie). Civil rights extend to the first of these traits (example of skin color), not to the second (coat and tie choices).

Tacky, yes. Legal, yes. I do not agree with much of this.

Edited to add, typo fixed and the religion bit is now legally protected to not be discrimiated again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Doctors can limit who they can and cannot see...

unless they violate the civil rights of their customers/patients.

Just like restaurants.

[uppityperson]

29. Right. Except in emergencies.

Though I have known doctors that I wouldn't trust in an emergency.

Although they, like restaraunts, can and do violate civil rights but figuring out ways around them. 1 big way is by incomve. I wish Civil Rights were the same for all across income lines, or perhaps better to say not able to discriminate based on income as well as color, sex, religion, sexual orientation.


If skin color, sex, sexual orientation are basic how you are, does that mean the lawmakers, constitution writers, include one's beliefs in the basic how-you-are-ness rather than choice category? I'm going off on a tangent here, sorry. Perhaps should take this to religion/spirituality forum.

[Solo_in_MD]

40. There are always fig leaves that cover discrimination

Patient load, patient mix, insurance, office hours. In private practice you can find a reason to not treat just about anyone and get away with it. Walk in clincs, emergency rooms are much harder.

[kestrel91316]

13. Better yet, can a doctor refuse to treat fundie "christians"?

Fair's fair, after all.

[uppityperson]

16. Yes, I would think so.

except in emergency situations.

[Solo_in_MD]

38. No but they can refuse to see patients without insurance

which clearly has a disproportinate impact of minorities

[SemperEadem]

28. an ear infection in a child is an emergency

Is there a hospital close by which doesn't discriminate or "does no harm" to patients who aren't plasticine imposters of this narrow-minded fuck and why didn't the doctor refer them there?

I feel sorry for anyone who feels the need to even have a medical health care business that only wants to deal with those people who look and think like they do. They are not fulfilling their Hippocratic oath:


I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

No where in there does it say that "I may pick and choose who I treat if they don't tow the line which does not offend my tender sensibilities".

[uppityperson]

32. I agree it is an emergency and should have been seen.

I have seen bleeding low income people sent away to figure out a way across town to the indigent care facility. It sucks but is legal, depending on the definition of "emergency". I have had my child refused care due to income, and sent across town to another facility. Of course my child only had a fever and was vomitting, not an emergency at all. :sarcasm:

The medical system is getting worse.

[SemperEadem]

33. Besides

the doctor was treating the child, not the parents. I'm sure the child didn't have tatooes. So, what's the problem there?

The doctor punished an already sick child--who was, I'm sure, in pain from the ear infection--by placing his ego before the patient's. That's a violation of his oath.

[Skidmore]

6. I'm sure the Hippocratic oath does have an exception for tattooed females.

No, wait...I'm confusing it with the Hypocritic oath.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Yeah, It's In There Some Where

Probably in the appendix. (Get it?)

Sorry, i just had to make a joke. It's the only way to deal with this level of silliness. This doctor needs to be sent into exile. How about Mars?
The Professor

[Solo_in_MD]

21. Its tacky but legal

I am curious why she made the appt even after she knew of the the policy

[uppityperson]

25. Thank you for your succinct comment.

I am curious as to did she know the policy or did they not tell her (told paper they did but didn't) or why she went anyways also.

[Solo_in_MD]

30. Its a they said/she said kind of thing, as the account of the ensuing meltdown too.

Many people in this country confuse opportunity and wants with rights. That same crowd are clueless as to where their rights end and others begin. At times it is discouraging.

In another thread another poster asserts that a store not carrying merchandies a woman might want is somehow discrimiation and a violation or rights. They claimed the issuance of a license created a must serve situation. No doubt they would assert the same right here.

While a business can not discriminate based on certain factors espcially in a place of public accomondation, it can still make choices as a business. What it carries for merchandise, a no shoes/no service rule and others that are reasonable for the buisness. Before people use the lookism argument, look at the entrance line outside of a trendy club and see who they let in

[uppityperson]

35. I can see some of the problems with issues like these.

It gets to what rights are protected by law (civil rights) and what aren't. What "should" be and what should not because we are all responsible for the outcome of (many of) our choices. What is a choice and what isn't.

If it is ok to discriminate based on dress, why not on color? (what is intrinsic and what is chois). In what situations? (choice of where to eat vs need to eat).

Sometimes it is discrimination, sometimes not. Sometimes is legally right but tacky anyways. A doctor can chose to treat based on age, but not skin color. Can chose to treat based on religion? Not sure since that is legally protected right. Is one's religion a choice or intrinsic?

[Solo_in_MD]

37. As do I...

I am torn between libertarian ideals of leaving as much choice as possible up to the person and the need for a fundementaly level playing field in society. The current rules for public accomodation work pretty well for me in that regards, though undoubtedly there is room for improvment in some jurisdictions. I am also not the kind of person who sees discrimination in every decision that did not go someones way.

The key for me is that there are alternatives. If you are the only X in town and someone has to have X (as in food/medicine) vice a want, I tends towards the must serve approach. Otherwise I tend to think that market and industry will tend to solve the problem.

Take Plan B and birth control pills. If a store decides not to carry it, thats fine with me (this is different than a pharmicist refusing to dispense for religious reasons to some clients). However, they should have to refer to other pharmacies. I also believe that the market will step in. If store A will not dispense BC that were presrcibed to you, why would you take any business there whatsoever. Also the insurance industry with their preferred provider approach often mandates what must be carried and dispensed to plan members. The latter is a major force in medicine

In the tattooed mom case, if the doctor in question was a preferred provider for her health plan, he just refused service to one of the covered members. Have to wonder how much longer he would be a preferred provider for that plan.

[SemperEadem]

34. how many health care providers are in that area?

the thing is: the child didn't have tatooes, so she/he should have been seen by the doctor. It was the parents who were paying for the service who had the tatooes--completely different and indefensable.

[uppityperson]

36. mapquest says 150+ in Bakersfield, but I don't know.

A child cannot be treated, legally, without parental permission. Hence, the parent needed to be there. This doctor is tacky and I would not chose to go to a place with this attitude, would not trust them.

I had to take my child to a different medical place once because where I went didn't take my type of insurance (low income). Good thing I had a car or else I would've had to walk over a mile with a feverish vomitting 5 yr old. Bitter? yes.

[Solo_in_MD]

39. Its a bit more than that

Mapquest tends to count facilites as one provider where they may be several in the clinic