Larson concluded his prepared remarks by saying, “I agree with the court, and Jesus does too.”

I expected more humility on the part of all panel members than is reflected in the above comment. I wish though that since there were two ethicists and two attorneys on the platform that another physician, male or female, in addition to the lone OB-GYN, was invited to address the audience as well.

Hi Jared:

Nice report. It actually included a bit of humor. I'm sure everybody had a nice chuckle at the expense of that "disgruntled, elderly gentleman."

But didn't you miss the biggest joke of all? I mean David Larson's allegedly proclaiming, “I agree with the court, and Jesus does too.”

Did Rush Limbaugh, that king of braggarts, ever rise to so monumental a level of God's-on-my-side hubris?

Say it ain't so, Dave. Say you didn't say it. Say they quoted you out of context. Say something.

It is not the first time that someone has claimed Jesus was on his side. Happens all the time. Even on this blog and in pulpits, people have the hubris to declare that they know what side Jesus is own, ergo, that is also their side.

We should let Dave inform us of his meaning.

This is a complex issue, and medical science has raised questions undreamed of only a few short years ago. Shoud physicians decide whethere a male patient has a vasectomy? Should a physician decide whether a man should be described a product for erectile dysfunction? The latter has been covered by some insurances, while, at the same time, birth control products were being denied insurance payments for females. Sexual discrimination?

Should physicians prescribe and treat infertile couples who later divorce? In essence, they may be increasing single-parenting in such cases, as no one can predict the future of a particular couple.

How much non-medical background should a physician ask of any patient before he treats or rejects treatment? Should he ask their religious beliefs? Physicians, daily, prescribe expensive treatment for near-terminal patients. Is this unethical or conflicting with their own beliefs? How much should a physician's personal beliefs be projected onto a patient? Should a physician prescribe birth control to an unmarried woman because he is opposed to premarital sex? How is this different from infertility treatment for a lesbian? Or from prescribing Viagra to a single male? Should that be limited by his personal beliefs? Must a patient also determine his physician's religious beliefs before seeking treatment?

I guess I don't understand the ethical problem here. The doctor isn't being asked to do something that would make it easier for the lesbian to have sex with another woman (which, if I understand correctly, is the religious problem). She wants to have a baby. What's ethically wrong with a woman having a baby? Ironically, having the baby has nothing to do with her having sex with another woman so what's the problem?

It really seems to me that there is a deep seated desire on the part of some Christians for gay/lesbian people to just not exist. If the Christians can make life extremely difficult for them, then maybe the gays/lesbians will just pretend they aren't anymore and life will be good again.

It's like the big boycott called against some company a few years ago because the company advertised its diapers in a gay friendly magazine. The ad featured a lesbian couple. Christians thought this was terrible and called for a boycott. Why? Lesbians shouldn't be allowed access to diapers? I mean when you think about it, it really is ridiculous. And it gets to the heart of it I think. The problem is not that you are having sex with the same sex - it's that you dare to exist and try and have a normal life.

Beth and Elaine

IMHO, the issue here is not about a physician's religious freedom but his/her autonomy as a professional. Patients, and their advocates, seem to demand too much from their careproviders especially in this country. If I were an attending doctor and someone were to request an EKG, a procedure or particular prescription for him/her, my unvoiced reflection, in my mind, would be: "Why don't we just exchange places? You be the doctor and I'll be your patient!"

I would agree with Joselito and oppose making another another legal class of people.
What is next? People who want to marry their brother or sister? The same arguements can be used.
The question of this thread is sloppy in the fact that it presupposes a class of people have special "rights" when they do not.
Even if there was an answer to the posed question one way or another, it doesnt save someone from incurring expenses of a lawsuit when the exercise their rights to deny services when they feel that service would violate their personal moral principals.

Joselito, my "roommate" of 60 years was a pathologist. In that capacity, he seldom knew the name or anything about the patient in diagnosing. Everyone who came for diagnoses was cared for.

Also, as a professional testifying for the court hundreds of times, he was never representing either the plaintiff or defendant, but was representing the court.

This is to explain that the particular speciality of a physician often determines whether care or treatment is given.

A professional wishing to practice in that chosen field may refuse to see a patient; however, once that acceptance, only very special circumstances should sever that relationship:
repeatedly refusing to follow advice, or demanding treatment that is useless or would harm the patient.

Is a teacher allowed to discriminate or refuse students and on what basis? A physician takes an oath to "first do no harm" and if she is holds out to be a specialst in fertility treatment, or ob-gyn, to refuse a patient only because the patient does not conform to the physician's personal standards, it would seem unethical and unprofessional to refuse on that basis. IOW, if the physician is anti-lesbian, she should prominently display signs that she refuses to treat lesbians and let it be known.

Settembrini,

I confess that as I read your comments, for just a moment I pictured you driving around in a little black and white car (like a smart car) with a flashing red light on top and a large, shiny badge on your lapel that read, "Humor Police". And the thought of it made me chuckle just a little. Who says we don't have a sense of humor?

Michael,

There seems to be a pattern in your commenting of correcting experts in their respective domains--correcting the Supreme Court on their faulty thinking here, informing scientists why their science is bad there, and in other places explaining why this theologian or that got it wrong.

I must plead ignorance when it comes to what you do for a living or what formal training you have. I will go out on a limb and guess that it does not include all of the above domains, in which case it seems that "I disagree" might be preferable to "that's wrong". I only mention it because as I've noted, the humor cops are on patrol handing out tickets to those who take themselves too seriously.

I should know, I've gotten plenty of tickets already ;-]

(there's that humor again)

Let's hear it for more humor and less doom and gloom.

Ooops, is that the humor police siren I hear?

I most emphatically did say that "Jesus agrees with the California Supreme Court" in this case and the audience knew that I did so only partly in jest.

This is because, in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, some Christian leaders are condemning what the Court said as an unacceptable infringement of religious freedom.

I believe they are in error and that this error, if intentional, which it might not be, is a violation of the Third Commandment. It prohibits taking God's name in vain.

I have sent an abbreviated text of my initial remarks to Leigh Johnsen and he may or may not post them here as my next column.

We'll see. Many thanks!

Dave

Joselito, as for the makeup of the panel, there were two attorney panelists (Reinach and Welebir), one ethicist (Larson), and one physician (Sawyer). Jim Walters did not present arguments but simply asked questions and moderated discussion. If I were to categorize the panelists on where each stood on the case, it seemed to me that both Reinach and Sawyer supported the right to discriminate based on religious convictions while Welebir and Larson seemed to side with the court, which ruled unanimously against discrimination on the basis of religious conviction.

As they faced the audience, Reinach sat on the far right with a space between him and Welebir. Welebir, Walters and Sawyer sat in the middle of the panel and there was a space between Sawyer and Larson, the latter sitting on the far left when facing the audience. (Of course for the audience, Reinach was on the far left and Larson on the far right.)

There were many physicians, some ethicists, some theologians and perhaps some lawyers in the audience as well.

Hear, hear for more humor!

Micheal--I often feel when reading your comments that you've somehow missed the whole point in an effort to jump all over anything that smacks of "liberal" or "critical" of the church's power structures. For example, you say above: "I would agree with Joselito and oppose making another another legal class of people. What is next? People who want to marry their brother or sister? The same arguements can be used."

You actually agree with the courts--doctors can't make "another legal class of people" and apply different standards of care to them just because they don't fit their image of a "parent" or a "Christian lifestyle." As for the whole brother/sister marriage bit, this isn't a discussion about marriage, it's about a woman being treated for infertility. But, even if it were, do you realize how ridiculous you make yourself sound when you throw something like that out? Of course it isn't remotely the same.

Beth--very good observation. What exactly is the ethical problem here? Does this doctor also not treat single, heterosexual women? Is the doctor's problem that a lesbian shouldn't reproduce period?

As far as the "business" model of healthcare, I'm afraid doctors are businesses these days, especially infertility clinics which are largely not covered by insurance and paid for out of pocket. I'm also curious just how the doctor came to find out this woman was a lesbian--I was treated in an infertility clinic, and they certainly didn't ask about my sexual orientation.

Jared

Supreme Court Justices are not a good example for the point you try to make since the case in question was a split decision. Are the Supreme Court Justices who voted as I believe as uniformed as you suggest I might be? I think not.
The same goes for science theory's and theologians. All areas of endeavor have "experts" in their camps.

That aside, I take your observations to heart and appreciate the attitude you displayed. I'll work on the I disagree thing more.

Would it ease your mind in future if I said I had degrees in 2 of the areas you mention and am employeed in the 3rd?

Stephanie,

I'll try and be clearer.
The thread topic is "Does Religious freedom trump Gay Rights?"

I did put 2 points into one sentance when I said I agreed with Joselito. Bad grammer. Mea Culpa.
The other part of that sentance was, "and oppose making another another legal class of people." I should have written "and I also" instead.
The second part of that sentance was refering more to the Gay Rights aspect. It is that aspect I said that the same arguements for Gay marraige could be used for brothers and sisters who want to marry.
I'll enumerate a few that I have heard used in pro gay agruements and insert Brothers and sisters as well to show how the same arguements apply.

1.What Gay's/brothers and sisters do in the bedroom is none of your buisness.
2.Gay/brother and sister marraige dont impinge on anyones elses marital status so why should you care.
3.God made people Gay (or incestuous) and who are you to say its wrong.
4.Your religious views are infringing on Gays/ brothers and sisters rights.
5.Just because a couple are Gay/incestuous does not mean they cannot be good parents.

Just to be clear, I was not commenting on a woman being treated for infertility.
Again apologies for the confusion.

Hey Jared:

Confession time: I'd never heard of a Smart Car till I followed your link. Thanks. It looks about the right size for me and those who agree with me on any given topic (that's usually just me and my dog).

(By the way, I'm hoping, after the Review article, that you're not still accusing me of being Cliff Goldstein.) :)

Religion and free speech rights:

News tonight in Fresno told about a mother whose son was a student at a local Catholic school where she was also PTA chair. Because she marched in a No against H8, they removed her from that position, and of course, she removed her son from the school.

There are still lots of protests and boycotts against the Mormon church because they gathered money from U.S. members to support Prop. 8.

Michael,

Your example equating brothers and sisters to same sex couples is ridiculous and quite frankly insulting.

There is not a durable group of between 5 and 10 percent of the population whose primary sexual orientation is toward siblings. Throwing in this incest canard does not illuminate the issue in the slightest; instead it shows to what extent people will go to rationalize their ridiculous fear of allowing GLBT people civil rights.

We've discussed this point before in other threads having to do with homosexuality but I feel inspired to bring it up again. What is it about this particular "sin" that makes Christians think they can act in ways that are just flat out mean? That this particular "sin" is so threatening that we have to stand up and stamp out every hint of a suggestion that these people can lead normal lives even if you don't agree with their behavior? That we have an obligation to thwart any attempt by these people to be normal human beings?

Saying someone does not have the moral right to reproduce is really serious. Very serious. We can all roll our eyes at those we know who we think might have been better off childless but we would never, in our wildest dreams, think about actually taking steps to make sure they couldn't reproduce. And yet some Christians seem to think that being gay is so awful, so morally degenerate, that they have the right to refuse this to others. Does this doctor really want to get into the business of screening everyone for moral fitness for reproduction? And more importantly, is it acceptable for her to single out lesbians as categorically unfit to reproduce? That the sin of being a lesbian is so damaging that the woman is unfit to be a parent?

I really think that many Christians on the sidelines of the "gay wars" have become numbed to the casual cruelty shown to gays and lesbians in the name of taking a stand against sin. And as I've said before, until Christians can put the sinfulness of being homosexual into perspective then this will continue. Being gay certainly causes less damage to society than gluttony but I doubt this doctor is telling overweight women they are morally unfit to be mothers. It is less harmful than adultery but I doubt she is asking her patients if they ever cheated and then refusing to treat them. And if she did refuse to treat overweight woman because of their moral degeneracy, would she have a pack of Christians at her back ready to support her and waving the banner of righteousness? Or would we be more likely to cringe at her presumption?

We are blind to the ways we treat gays and lesbians - ways we would never, ever treat other people who commit sins much more harmful - because it is simply an ingrained part of Christian culture to do this. And it's shameful.

Settembrini,

Smart Cars are recyclable. Which makes them even smarter. Standing a lofty 5'7.125" as I do, Smart Cars are just about my size too.

As for accusations (I prefer inferences)...if you tell me that you're not Clifford Goldstein, and you don't have your fingers crossed, then I will happily apologize for misconstruing your identity and invite you to doff your cloak, come out of the closet, or however you would like to do it. I promise we're not any meaner to people who use their real names than to people who use their superhero names. :-)

Michael,

If I am not mistaken, in the case of Benitez v. North Coast (or North Coast v. San Diego), there were two unanimous decisions rendered--the first by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that patients can sue doctors who discriminate based on sexual orientation and that federal law does not exempt health care providers from state civil rights laws. The second unanimous decision was that of the California Supreme Court, which found in favor of Benitez and stated that the Unruh Civil Rights Act must be followed.

Now I will admit freely that I am not versed in law. I rely entirely on other people's expertise. I'm getting my information from Lambda Legal, which represented Guadalupe Benitez before the CA Supreme Court.

As for my mention of expertise in a given field, you would have been right to remind me that expertise does not equal being correct necessarily, as you implied in noting that there can be any number of experts in a field with any number of expert opinions on their given areas of expertise.

I was unaware of your expertise (in which fields did you say?). You'll have to pardon me for reading with, as a professor of mine puts it, an amicable raised eyebrow.

Jared,
My bad again.
The split decision I was refering to was the Supreme Court ruling which gave birth to the Prop8 debate issues we have all been through.

Hey Jared:

No need to apologise for your inference. In fact, it's flattering. If only I were Cliff Goldstein! That would be my one claim to fame. But I did need to make sure you didn't direct Andy Hanson my way when he storms out to give Cliff that vicious Sprectrum BLACK EYE.

I see that you and Michael have kissed and made up. Nevertheless, I hope you feel free to borrow my Smart Car on future occasions when you need to run down bloggers who aren't sufficiently deferential toward their betters.

Speaking of Michael, don't you think his analogy with the man who wants to marry his sister is a pretty good one? It must be, since the people who are reprimanding him have such weak arguments; for example, Carlitas says there aren't enough incestuous couples for them to count, as though you have to have a quorum before you have civil rights.

Jared, and everybody:

That's more than once I've mis-spelled Spectrum. It's not an attempt at a pun or wisecrack or anything else. It's just unforgivably clumsy fingers, and I apologise.

settembrini--I have a feeling that you don't agree with Michael's argument that incest should just as easily be allowed, but, you often just like to point out flaws or gaps in others' arguments instead of offering your own. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

The whole issue with incest being like homosexuality really is insulting, so much so that I find it hard to even seriously engage with Michael's arguments. Why is incest not the same? Well, the cover story on CNN today shows why (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/13/austria.fritzl/index.html). Typically incest happens through the exploitation of one party. This is, of course, extremely psychologically damaging. And I speak as someone who has a parent who suffered incestuous abuse--one never recovers from it. So, please don't even try to say that it doesn't impact anyone other than the two parties--it impacts families for generations to come.

Secondly, as the CNN story states, any children who might come from such a union are typically severely comprised from a health perspective--this is what ultimately got this man caught. So again it is not a situation where nobody has "any business" because innocent parties can be hurt. That is just such a far, far cry from the committed, monogamous relationships between two adults that we're talking about with same-sex marriage that I really hardly know how to wade in.

But, and here's something I always wonder--for people who take the Eden story as God's ideal for marriage, isn't there a problem with who the kids married? Wouldn't a strict interpretation of Genesis make incest okay? I realize this sounds like a bit of a lame question, but I've never seen it addressed by those who hold to the "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" line of theology. It seems like most people would say, "Well, they were genetically pure, etc. etc. and it wasn't meant to last" or something similar. But again that seems like we're adjusting for current cultural standards.

I've posted some comments to the other thread on this subject by David Larson. I won't regurgitate them here, but suffice it to say that the court's decision in Benitez (North Coast) was problematic whereas they got the issue right in the marriage cases.

Here there were two competing Unruh classes (religion and sexual orientation) and the court should have looked to see what the least restrictive means of keeping both sides happy. The physicians and the patient could both suffer harm. In other words, the court should have considered the doctors' referral a sufficient attempt to accommodate her needs. (Unfortunately, this same requirement of accommodation would have been missing if she had been a religious employee seeking accommodation. If you cannot work on Saturday due to a religious conviction, the employer only has to show a "di minimis" cost or inconvenience to deny you your rights. If that analysis were applied to the doctors, they would have been shown to go above and beyond their required duty to accommodate. Of course, you may say that we are talking apples and oranges here, but in reality it has to do with how far one has to go to accommodate the rights of the members of another classification.)

In the marriage case, the opponents of same-sex marriage failed to articulate a direct degree of harm, and the court decided that the fundamental right of marriage was being completely denied to a protected class without legal basis. Here, the court did not see any problem with imposing an affirmative duty on people who willingly referred it to a third party willing to perform.

Benitez sets bad precedent on a number of levels.

http://religiousliberty.tv/analysis-california-supreme-court-unanimously...

With regard to what God would have done here, I don't know. He would probably say, "stop fighting about what I want, and start following Me. Then everything else will get sorted out."

Michael Peabody
ReligiousLiberty.TV

Settimbrini,

I was not intending to indicate that a certain number of people are needed for a group to gain civil rights, though this is true in practice. Anti-discrimination rights require a class of people who are being discriminated against to qualify for civil protection.

People who are primarily oriented to a person of the same sex are a natural variation in sexuality seen in a significant proportion of the human population. This orientation is biological and may have genetic and psychological components. There is no such primary orientation to siblings and no known biological or genetic predisposition to orientation to siblings. In fact, nature goes out of its way to preclude siblings from mating with instinct and learned behaviors that put a premium on genetic diversity. Stephanie has pointed out the psychological damage caused by incest.

GLBT people can and do live psychologically healthy, productive and meaningful lives, have families and contribute to society in meaningful and sometimes special ways. The health of GLBT people, our relationships and our families is enhanced with access to goods, services, rights and responsibilities as full members of society.

Some contributors to the Spectrum blogs think it is perfectly acceptable to make insinuations about GLBT people; assume moral weakness, psychological illness and other attributes based on sexual orientation. Some even find it acceptable to create fanciful scenarios that trivialize solid committed relationships by throwing in incest, rape, human-animal sexual acts (animal abuse in my opinion). Do you know how insulting this is to GLBT people? You hide behind the bible and faith and lob these hurtful and dishonest bombs disguised as intellectual discussion. You don’t fool me.

I have read the entire legal decision in question in this thread and am struck by the fact that if same sex marriage is legal in California, the doctors at the North Coast Medical group could legally and consistently deny their services to unmarried women without denying anyone their civil rights. This is only true if civil marriage is available to all couples regardless of their sexual orientation. Ironic, isn’t it.

Welcome to the world: I'm O.K.; Your O.K. !

We seem make our own taxonomy of good and bad: normal and abnormal,: right and wrong!

Certainly there is praise in diversity. But is there honor in disregarding God's intent?

I don't know the pain of homosexuality. I do know the disgust of homosexual and heterosexual propositioning.

It think the courts are the last place one would go to find either answers or relief.

Certainly, the moral majority is of very little help either.

I cannot and will not speak for others. But I believe and hold dear monogany between one man and one woman, and I have 59. 5/12 years to support my case.

Should the church take sides? Well it did! If that is only the first wrong thing it did, Praise God!

We stand before the throne of Grace, one by one. Let us not judge one another. Our dossier is pretty full on its own accord.

If it is opinion you want you surely must have had enough by now. Let us go on to weighter matter of the law/grace. Tom

Stephanie:

Here's a summary of what I think about a civil right to same sex marriage. (I don't think my eccentric opinion is important, but since you asked, here it is, as brief and over-simplified as I can make it.)

1. Government should not define marriage at all.
2. If people want to enter into a binding arrangement to live together, raise kids together, be sexually "faithful", etc., let them make a contract and let the courts enforce the contract in the same way they enforce any other contract.
3. Nothing should prevent churches or other oganizations creating and enforcing marriage rules and procedures for their own members.
4. If the sovereign people decide that I'm wrong, that marriage is public business, then let the democratically elected legislatures do their job. If they leave it up to courts we will have nonsense of the kind that led to Prop 8, where a few political judges arbitrarily overturned the established laws and traditions of the state, thereby showing their contempt for the people and for the constitution.

(Please don't interpret the last sentence as pro Prop 8, although Prop 8 at least had the virtue of being submitted to the people.)

I'll leave it at that. This isn't the place to go into things like insurance, tax policy, inheritance, etc., all of which are problematical because government meddles in marriage, not because government doesn't meddle in marriage.

I enjoy your postings. Thanks.

"I don't know the pain of homosexuality. I do know the disgust of homosexual and heterosexual propositioning."

Tom, as a female, I have always wondered and found it odd that men seemed so disgusted and demeaning of homosexual men, but I am not bothered by either lesbians or males who prefer the same sex. Are you bothered as much by lesbians or is more directed toward the male homosexuals? Do you feel the same about lesbians?

Most men have likely been propositioned, and women are far more subtle in that area, so I haven't experienced another female propositioning me; but if it had happened, I would politely say I'm not interested, and that would be end of it. Have any homosexual men done more than proposition? Why are words so fearful?

Help us who are females to understand homophobia which seems to be limited to the the male sex.

My opinion is that it's dominance that is so feared by men, and women are usualy dominated.

Carlitas:

Thanks for your clear and cogent reply. I find no problem with the details, but I'm afraid your methods will get you nowhere, because they work as well for your opponents as they do for you.

Two examples:

1. If your side can say who is "natural" and who not, based on your criteria, your opponents are equally free to say who is "unnatural" and who not, based on their criteria. The fact that your argument is scientific (and theirs probably not) doesn't help you, because your conclusion isn't scientific. You conclude, with cogent evidence, that homosexuality is a "natural variation"; but the concept "natural", as you use it (and as your opponents use it), is rhetorical, not scientific. Your opponents face the same problem: no matter how cogently they marshall their theological and sociological evidence (yes, some of them are cogent), in the end, when they declare homosexuality "unnatural", they have dropped their theology and sociology and turned rhetorical.

2. Stephanie did indeed point out psychological damage caused by incest. And it's just as easy to point out examples of psychological damage caused by homosexual relationships, and (dare I say it?) heterosexual relationships, including marriages "blessed in heaven."

As for the insults and insinuations, they, too, fly both ways, don't they?

Your final paragraph: yes, the law is an ass.

Thanks again for all the trouble and time you must have taken over that last posting. It's a model of clarity (are you French?). I wish clarity were enough in these murky polemical waters.

Settembrini writes:

"And it's just as easy to point out examples of psychological damage caused by homosexual relationships"

I'd like to see that evidence, and how specifically the studies show that LBGT identity is the cause for whatever ails.

It should be noted that since the 70s the American Psychological Association has rejected the idea that same-gender love is abnormal or causes statistically significant psychological damage.

And just so we're clear for the hundredth time, incest has no comparison with same-gender love because there is just not, under the same amount of research, any evidence that incest is an identity. As Carlitas has pointed out, when folks draw these extreme analogies between bestiality, etc and same-gender love they are really just showing that their logic actually rests on an emotional connection.

Think about it this way. The exact same slippery slope "logic" is in place if one asks. If we let Blacks and Asians marry what keeps us from letting people marry animals.

If one takes serious the scientific evidence that race/color is not chosen by most people and neither is gender identity (anyone here choose to be straight?) than logic tells us that Michael's comparison doesn't hold up beyond the tenuous "I find both disgusting link" which is neither logical nor moral.

For a great expose on the change of the APA's definition of "sexual deviance" in the 70's, check out the following TAL episode entitled "81 words."

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=204

Yeah, I've listened to that. It's a great story. Why do you use the word "exposé?"

I didn't mean anything negative by it...as if it exposed some secret or harmful plot. Just that it exposes/reveals what happened historically and is not generally known by people.

Ah - thanks. Listening to it again now, back to grading papers.

Ah, the joys of teaching. I'm off to class myself. What you teaching this semester?

A couple of History of Western Arts classes and a History of Photography. Next quarter I've got the Christian and the Media, American Art, the Christian Tradition in Art, and Elements of Cinema.

How's life at Columbia?

Sorry folks for this interlude from the culture wars.

...if same sex marriage is legal in California, the doctors at the North Coast Medical group could legally and consistently deny their services to unmarried women without denying anyone their civil rights. This is only true if civil marriage is available to all couples regardless of their sexual orientation. Ironic, isn’t it.
Posted by: Carlitas | 13 November 2008 at 7:06

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by the above. Clearly, Benitez was being treated by her primary physician for infertility regardless of her marital status and gender identity. So, firstly, the physician-patient relationship was strictly confidential and that neither marital status nor gender identity was an issue. Secondly, as far as the method she used was self applied - the intravaginal introduction of fresh sperm - there was no problem. Both her privacy as a citizen and her freedom as a human being was respected, was it not?

Alex! (your posting 14 November 2008 at 12:22)

Yes, I said, "And it's just as easy to point out examples of psychological damage caused by homosexual relationships."

Not surprisinging, in the second paragraph of your reply you changed my "examples" to "evidence". You have trouble making distinctions, don't you?

There are examples at www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html and a myriad other places. There are anecdotal examples all over the place. Find them yourself. I hereby resign as your research assistant.

Disclaimer, for you jumpers to conclusions, including Alex: I do not endorse either the methods or the findings of the NARTH studies, or any other studies. I do not think gay unions should be illegal, I do not endorse incest.

I merely said that persons who oppose homosexuality can find their examples as easily as Stephanie found hers. They can and they do.

As a general principle, scientific studies cannot lead us to conclusions about moral questions. If you doubt it, you need to read your William James again.

Elaine

Since you and I have been painted as those who trouble Israel, I will answer your post.

Yes, I was not disgusted by a verbal proposition. I will spare you the details, but I was physically attacked in a most disgusting fashion by advowed Seventh-day Adventist non-combatants. Frankly, I hit one square on the mouth--but not as hard as I had wished. Tom

Never the less, I have defended, in the work place, active
consentual lesbian faculty as to their right of privacy. I have been a good helpful neighbor to a lesbian couple.

I also believe in free speech and use it. tjz

Tom, I have known you as a very compassionate person by your postings here and I never doubted your courtesy nor sincerity. I merely asked about the apparent disgust felt by males against male homosexuality that I haven't seen in females against lesbians. I've read and heard explanations, and have never been satisfied with feeble explanations.

My straight son was propositioned when a college student, as were some of his friends. They felt very psychologically threatened, but I haven't known of a similar situation with lesbians. If it is the fear of being dominated (which, for example is the true reason behind rape), that would be a legitimate fear. This makes sense, as my daughter, a family nurse practitioner for a county jail for many years, said she could always tell by an inmate's face if he had been raped, a very usual circumstance with incarceration.

Elaine

Just guessing, but don't take my word for it: psychological trauma consequent to the threat of penetration by another male?

BTW, in my culture, it's fairly common for two women to cohabit if only temporily. Never males. The ones I've seen in this country among immigrants are all interracial and I'm wondering why.

Settembrini,

A little slow on the draw (I sometimes pretend that I have another life outside of Spectrum), but here is my public apology for linking you to Cliff Goldstein. I'm sorry for that! I take you at your word that you are not one and the same (a cousin perhaps?) :)

I also thank you for your ongoing contributions to the conversations and, true to my word, invite you to post as your real self for the reason that it is always easier to engage in conversation with someone who is completely forthcoming (though per the Spectrum guidelines, a consistently used pseudonym is accceptable if you so choose). Now if your name really is Settembrini, then I'll be issuing another apology soon, but don't tell me that your name is truly settembrini just because it's fun to watch me apologize...

In any case, thanks for providing opportunities for my erroneous speculation and for keeping us guessing. It's been fun.

Elaine

I was a consultant to the Georgia Department of Correction for almost 8 years.

My first encounter was in the dispensery where a young man was in a private cell curled up in the fetal position. I asked the physcian in charge what was the problem. He told me that the "boy" and swallowed broken glass to get himself out of the dorm area because of the multiple rapes he had experienced as being the smallest and youngest inmate in the dorm.

My faculty, who treated patients on a voluntary basis at the State Pen at Reidsville, Georgia, had many stories even more gross. I was a member of a jury, in which a young prisoner was brought in to testify during the sentencing phase of a capital case. The boy has been hit on the side of the head with a two D dry cell battery fist. He was dragged into a cell and raped. The point was, to allow the man on trial to life in prison was a risk to the guards and inmates. (The boy had raped a 10 year old girl) So the females on the jury thought the boy had receive exactly the correct punishment. The final vote was a hung jury. The judge then had the power to impose life without the possibility of parole.

As a young non-combatant in WWII I assigned to basis training in an infantry Bn at Fort Benning. When I refused to carry a rifle, I was sent to the base psychitrist. In the waiting room were two other G.I.'s One was a very large black G.I.

He asked me what I was being interviewed for: I said, the Company Commander thinks I'm some kind of nut, I guess. I then asked him. He said, I raped a white girl in Columbus. Before, I get Court Marshalled, they want a doctor's opinion on the record. No more conversation occurred.

There in is my disgust in addition to the two physical and one verbal advancement made to me as a young 18 year old. Tom

Tom, as you well know, this is a constant and pervasive problem in prison. There is an effort in California to integrate prisons interracially and everyone warned about the potential dangers, but equality seems to trump common sense. It occurs anywhere where there is an all male environment, beginning with all-male schools in England for over a century, and even today. Even SDA boarding schools have not been exempt. What is the answer, especially to protect young men, who may not be a physically strong as others?

Hi Jared:

I accept your apology, but I'd rather you withdrew it, because you've nothing to apologize for. To be mistaken for a celebrity is always a boost to the ego. (A cop once excused me from a speeding ticket because he thought I looked like Frasier Crane.) In fact, it tickles me that anyone is interested in who I am, since I don't take anyone's "side" around here, and I sometimes express disdain for the political issues that everybody seems so enthusiastic about.

As for your suggestion I post as my "real self": it would make no difference to you because you wouldn't recognize me; and anyone who did recognize me would probably call me more names than they have done already. (And by the way, I don't hide. With every post I supply a correct email address that includes enough of my name to identify me, if that were necessary.)

And don't you think using only pseudonyms might increase the objectivity of the blogs? After all, wasn't it you who suggested that Michael be less sure of himself and speak with more deference in the presence of experts and professionals, as though we should be respecters of persons?

And the other side of the coin: I would feel better about the guy who says it's wrong to say "God Bless America" if I didn't know he was presiding officer of a "distinguished" SDA medical training institution.

No, it wouldn't be fun to see you apologize again. But, speaking of fun, why don't you get a "distinguished" ethicist to talk to the Spectrum webmaster and persuade him to give you my email address (with my name). I'm sure any professor of ethics worth his salt could give the webmaster reasons that "trump" the promise of privacy. That would be very funny (unlike the very unfunny ethicist in a well-known SDA institution who told me that if I knew a young woman who was about to unknowingly marry a man who I knew to have AIDS, it would be unethical of me to warn the girl).

Thanks for the friendly post!

I might know settembrini even though I don't know him/her. Likewise, I might know the ethicist in question even though I don't know the individual.

In any event, the case pits the principles of confidentiality and nonmalifence against each other. One should try to get the man to tell the woman himself, even if this takes some pressure. But if he refused, one must come down on the side of nonmalifence and warn the woman.

This is what strikes most as ethically required; however, in the Tarsoff v. University of California case this obligation is made a matter of law as well.

Confidentiality is important but not absolute. It can and must be broken when someone is in clear and danger to himself of herself, when others within this person's sphere of influence are put at risk, and whenever the individual is a serious threat to the common good.

One can imagine an extreme case when it would be ethically obligatory to trump an individual's privacy; however, this would be very rare and under circumstances of great danger.

I'm sorry I'm not very funny about this. But these can be issues of life and death. They are not matters about which to joke.

Many thanks!

Dave

At one level, the state has the right to licence and regulate physicians (and does). In that capacity, the CA courts have chosen to say that doctors must treat lesbians as discussed in this thread. In Nazi Germany, doctors were ordered to perform human experiments on prisoners. At some point, a doctor has to decide for him/herself if he/she will follow the rules of the state or not. I guess each must decide on the moral vs. financial cost, and decide accordingly. Since these things are generally taught during training, they would ideally have chosen career/speciality accordingly. It would be difficulty to foresee all possibilities, though, especially with advances in science and changes in culture/society. As in all careers, though, we each must balance our individual conciences vs. the dictates of our employers, and be able to live with our decisions.

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN THIS RULING PROTECTS BOTH HOMOSEXUALS AND HETEROSEXUALS FROM DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF NOTHING BUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS.

ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD THEREFORE SUPPORT IT.

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision on abortion, specifically says that whether one is to be perfomed is up to the MD [not the woman, as many wrongly think].

This protects an MD from performing an abortion that is contrary to his or her judgment, no matter how this conclusion is reached.

By implication and elloboration, this prohibits doctors from being forced to do any procedure they believe to be inappropriate, again for whatever reason they think this, as long as they do this evenhandedly by treating similar cases similarly.

THE REFUSAL MUST BE AIMED AT THE PROCEDURE, NOT THE PERSON.

Except in very rare circumstances, MDs are expected to treat even convicted felons--murders and child molesters, if you please--with the same skill and compassion that they treat anyone else. This is part of what it means to be a professional.

A MD can say, "Because my [Roman Catholic] church forbids intentional sterilization, I don't do vascetomies, no matter what the man's race is."

A MD cannot say, "Because my religion requires this, I do vascetomies on white men who want them, but not on black men who want them."

Why? Because in the first place the MD is discriminating against the PROCEDURE and in the second the MD is discriminating against the PERSON.

My personal opinion is that the lawyers for Benitez doctor(s) did not serve the MD(s) well.

They could have defended the MD(S) on a straightforward limitation of practice basis, saying that the MD in question restricts the practice of fertility medicine to those procedures that do not entail artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogate gestation.

But for reasons I do not understand, they launched a freedom of religion defense. What's more, they tried to defend discriminating against PERSONS rather than against PROCEDURES on religious grounds.

This defense was dead on arrival and the lawyers who made it should have known that this would happen.

The first court rightly told them to get lost. The second one said that they should be given a chance to make their case. The third court [rightly] told them to get lost too.

But the third court--California Supreme Court--specifically made it clear that it was ruling on the narrow legal question as to whether religous freedom allows MDs to discriminate AGAINST PERSONS, NOT PROCEDURES, this time because of the sexual orientation of the persons, leaving open other possible defenses.

In fact, for my money, the CSS dropped hints all over the place that the defense lawyers should try these other approaches.

We need to notice that the third court asked the question in terms of "sexual orientation" as such. This means that its ruling protects both gay and straight people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So, what's the problem? It is that some Christian leaders have wrongly denounced this ruling as a threat to religious liberty, some even traveling from church to church with this false message. By doing this they have needlessly alarmed people.

There are reasons to be alarmed. This case is not one of them.

Most Nazi doctors were not forced to do the evil medical experiments that have been mentioned. They did them all too eagerly.

This is pre-supposing that the state's moral equivalence between race and sexual orientation must be adopted by individuals. Loma Linda University would I presume support the right of an individual physician not to act against his conscience and perform the fertility procedure. Loma Linda would not terminate a physician who would make such a choice, nor would they require another doctor to do so.

Loma LInda University would simply not permit a state rule of this nature to impact the individual religious conscience of the physician. So why must we expect other facilities to do the same?

Dr. Larson, would you support the termination of an Adventist doctor at Loma Linda who did what the Benitez doctors did?

Dr. Ed

I think it important for us to keep in mind that the California Supreme Court framed the question in terms of sexual orientations, and not sexual activities whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Here are the words with which the Court begins its ruling:

"Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic's physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation. Our answer is no."

Two things are worth noting: (1) The Court directed its attention to persons, not procedures and (2) the Court focused upon sexual orientations, not sexual activities.

This is why the protection the Court provides in this case applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Refusing to treat a heterosexual for no other reason than the person's sexual orientation would be as great a violation as doing that to a homosexual.

All we have to do is replace the word "race" for the term "sexual orientation" and we can see why the Court ruled as it did.

If one doubts that both heterosexual and homosexual orientations exist, and that in varying ways and degrees both are biologically grounded, the Court's decision makes no sense.

In this the Court simply accepted without comment majority scientific findings. One is free to contest this consensus, of course. But it will not be easy to succeed.

As I've previously indicated, I am not convinced that Doctor Brody violated the Unruh Act. This is why I think her lawyers made a mistake when they introduced the religious liberty issue.

But perhaps they knew she was guilty. If so, they should have settled out of court. But from what I've seen I think a good case could have been made that she had not acted in an illegal way.

I have neither sought nor been given authoriztion to comment in public on the specific policies and protocols at the Loma Linda University Medical Center on this issue.

All questions of that sort should be addressed to the LLUMC's Office of Public Affairs.

Speaking in general terms, every medical center I know of makes every effort to honor a health care professional's conscientious refusal to do certain PROCEDURES. It is necessary for the MD, or whomever, to make these ethical convictions known well in advance of any emergency, however.

Again, speaking generally, every medical center I know of requires its personnel to act in harmony with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

I can imagine very few things that would bring a MD's career more swiftly to an end than for him or her to refuse to treat a patient for no reason other than the person's race, for example.

I have never heard of a MD doing this. It is so contrary to the letter and spirit of medical ethics and law that the issue has never come up at any of the medical centers at which I have served. [I have been a medical ethics consultant at several, some not in California.]

I do not see how any Christian can defend refusing to treat patients for nothing bu race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, political persusasion, criminal record............... But some who are not clinicians have actually been trying to do this. Amazing!

Thank you! I appreciate the question because it gives me another chance to try to communicate clearly.

Dave

Settembrini,

I think you may be right about more objectivity as a result of relative anonymity. Then again, the hangup I have with anonymity is that people seem to feel bolder (at least that's the impression I get) when they post from behind an online identity (and here I'm not pointing your direction, just describing a general phenomenon I've noticed on Spectrum and elsewhere).

There seems to be a tendency for people to feel that they can get away with saying nastier things when they are confident that their comments will not be attached to their actual person. Chris Cilizza, who blogs for the Washington Post once had an interesting discussion with other political bloggers about that topic. They noted that when people have to go through more steps to register for a forum, and when there is more transparency in identity, there also tends to be more courteous dialog in general.

Again, this is not with reference to any particular person or persons, it just seems to be a general trend.

Having said that, there are some very good reasons why people might choose to post anonymously. When people are recounting stories of sexual abuse, for example, which has happened here before, it might be preferable to speak using a pseudonym for privacy reasons.

In general, though, I'm an advocate of greater transparency because I have a hunch that people are more courteous in general when they are themselves.

For what it's worth.

Farewell, Alex, Jared, Dave, and everybody:

Thanks for your well-reasoned postings. I'll give you the last word.

My vacation is over and I have to get back to what I really do, so my pretty fake-Italian pseudonym and all its connotations will be disapperaring for these blogs (stop cheering you guys!)

Special thanks to Alex and Jared, who were particularly (and patiently) attentive to me, and the rest of the gang, who were kind enough to straighten me out whenever I needed it. Especially good ole Tom. Tom, in case anyone missed it, I want to quote your final devastating judgement on me: "settembrine, You seem to have a chip on your shoulder or a hair crossways against a sensitive oriface."

I've pasted that directly from Tom's post, letter for letter, and I challenge anybody to improve on it.

What exactly is the ethical problem here? Does this doctor also not treat single, heterosexual women? Is the doctor's problem that a lesbian shouldn't reproduce period?
Posted by: Stephanie (not verified) | 12 November 2008 at 10:52

At this point in our conversation it should already be clear that Benitez's primary physicians treated her for infertility regardless of her sexual orientation and marital status. Personal info such as this was kept with strict confidentiality between careprovider and patient.

A religious objection of one of the attending physicians, by Dr Fenton in particular, surfaced, per court testimony, when the artificial insemination procedure involved fresh sperm samples from a known donor--a male friend of Benitez. It appears that only Dr Fenton was professionally qualified and licensed to provide such a service. Subsequently, a referral was made to another clinic. Still unable to become pregnant by artificial insemination, Benitez's physician in the other clinic resorted to in vitro fertilization. We have not been told if IVF could have been offered and would have been provided in Dr Brody and Dr Fenton's infertility clinic if it wasn't Benitez and a known male donor wasn't involved.

This question, raised before, still has not been answered:

Can a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for Viagra to a single man or woman for religious reasons? What is the difference between that and refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills?

Similar to insurance that pays for Viagra and not birth control pills?

The question that I'd like to hear answered (in addition to the good question above) is why in the world physicians even need to know whether their patients are gay or straight, single or married. It seems as though those issues never need to enter the discussion.

Why would a physician ask, "Are you straight or gay?" Why would a physician ask, "Are you single, in a relationship, or married?"

That is a breech of privacy, isn't it?

Jared

It would not be a breach of privacy, I believe, if all info were kept strictly confidential between physician and patient. In the Benitez's case, since infertility was her chief complaint, what other relevant info besides self reported sexual identity might her primary physician request her to divulge? Whether or not the persons concerned have been sexually active, right? the sexual identity of their partner/s as well?

Anybody watch the show House?
House's main diagnostic montra is that patients lie and EVERYthing is relevant.

"While physicians are not responsible for identifying homosexual or bisexual youth, physicians should create a clinical environment where adolescents feel safe to discuss sensitive personal issues, including sexuality and orientation.

"The overall goal in caring for all youth is to promote normal adolescent development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health."

-AAP report on adolescent sexuality
American Family Physician, Oct 1, 2004

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_/ai_n8570271?tag=artBody;...

The interesting thing to me is that Benitez (as I understand it) had already been receiving treatment for about a year to help her conceive. That she was a lesbian didn't seem to become an issue until after numerous procedures had already failed. It was then, after those procedures had been attempted unsuccessfully that the doctors refused to perform aftificial insemination on the basis of the patient's sexual orientation.

I suppose the point is that whatever privileged information patients are required to divulge for the sake of receiving better treatment, that privileged information should never become the basis of discrimination against the patient.

That seems to have been the ruling of the court.

Benitez had reportedly previously tried a non-medical procedure of intravaginal self insemination, first with fresh sperm from a sperm bank and later with fresh sperm from a known male friend. As far as the method she used was self administered, her physicians gave her absolute freedom of choice. Intrauterine insemination (IUI), however, is a medical procedure that needs direct physician intervention. Dr Fenton's hesitation - religious objection - reportedly surfaced in connection with intrauterine insemination (IUI) using fresh sperm, not from a sperm bank (consisting of a donor pool) but from a known male donor.

The defendants (Drs Brody and Fenton) asserted it wasn't sexual orientation but Benitez's unmarried status - though she had a partner (Joanne Clark) - that accounted for their religious objection. Whether or not doctors, regarded as a medical corporation or business establishment, may discriminate on the basis of one's civil status in this particular case or similar to this (a domestic partnership) for religious reasons is an issue the court chose not to pursue. At any rate, I believe it's best not to discriminate. Period.

"Any physician who is unable to care for and counsel homosexual and bisexual youth should refer the patient to an appropriate colleague."

- AAP report on adolescent sexuality
American Family Physician, Oct 1, 2004

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_/ai_n8570271?tag=artBody;...

Romans 14:22, 23 (The Message)

"Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe—some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them—then you know that you're out of line. If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it's wrong."