Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Dr. Lawrence Jensen is an internist. He refuses to treat gay patients. Jensen has explained to colleagues that his refusal has nothing to do with the fear of aids. Rather, he explains, he is religious and in his religion it is a sin to be homosexual. He says, “I just don’t feel right treating people who sin in that way.”
This is a real story presented and analyzed in Li Fellers, Ambulance Firm Faces Biased Suit, Chicago Tribune, May 9th, 2005.
Keep in mind the AMA code ethics provides the option of referring treatment physicians perceive as ethically adverse to another professional who may provide said treatment. This is meant to protect the ethical and religious integrity of medical practitioners.
Ethics and law aside, would you want someone treating you who felt that way about you? Surely there are many more internists available. If he’s totally on his own he should be able to treat who he wants. If he’s with a public group or if he receives government money (most receive Medicare, etc.), then he should be obligated. With government money comes government regulation.
Ethics and law aside, would you want someone treating you who felt that way about you? Surely there are many more internists available. If he’s totally on his own he should be able to treat who he wants. If he’s with a public group or if he receives government money (most receive Medicare, etc.), then he should be obligated. With government money comes government regulation.
Ethics and law aside, would you want someone treating you who felt that way about you? Surely there are many more internists available. If he’s totally on his own he should be able to treat who he wants. If he’s with a public group or if he receives government money (most receive Medicare, etc.), then he should be obligated. With government money comes government regulation.
Agree with that.
I agree to a certain point. On the other hand, if Jensen opened up a restaurant or a store, could he legally refuse to serve gays? I don’t think so. Why should his private medical practice be treated differently?
And anyway, what happened to “Hate the sin, love the sinner?”
His refusal to treat a certain demographic of patients increases the overhead of his workplace, increases logistics randomly based on when/how members of this demographic comes to require services at the hospital, and further complicates the patient load of other medical professionals who have to fit these patients into their workload simply because Jensen discriminates.
If I were an administrator at the place this fellow works, I’d be looking for suitable replacements that don’t cause extra logisitical overhead for purely personal reasons.
If Jensen wishes to continue to practice prejudicial medicine, he can always seek work at a clinic or hospital that clearly has a ‘no gays’ policy.
Further, if we replace ‘gay’ with ‘black’ or ‘left-handed people’ or ‘natural red-heads’ we see just how arbitrarily prejudicial Jensen’s position is.
That’s not the question, though. The question is should he be legally compelled to provide.
Nice to see someone is keeping their eye on the ball.
It’s important to not muddle “I disapprove” with “I wish to empower government to point guns at people who do X.”
Firing him - my suggestion - clearly suggests excusing and preventing him from practicing.
Am I in favor of forcing him to practice medicine upon people he would normally discriminate against? No, not really.
Jensen cannot be forced to provide care to anyone. He can be marginalized, discredited or stripped of his licensure. Personally, I cannot imagine accepting medical care from anyone whose mind is this cramped. How can you trust him to think expansively, creatively or compassionately about health? Did Jensen swear a hypocitic oath rather than a Hippocratic one? Does he willingly treat liars, thieves, adulterers, and those who would not honor their mothers and fathers?
Jensen cannot be forced to provide care to anyone. He can be marginalized, discredited or stripped of his licensure. Personally, I cannot imagine accepting medical care from anyone whose mind is this cramped. How can you trust him to think expansively, creatively or compassionately about health? Did Jensen swear a hypocitic oath rather than a Hippocratic one? Does he willingly treat liars, thieves, adulterers, and those who would not honor their mothers and fathers?
Or even just people with tattoos, or who hold down jobs that make them work on sundays, or wear clothing with cotton blends.
Yes, yes, Jefe and Mike are spot on. Doctors code of ethics, the Hippocratic oath, is what practicing medicine is all about.
All people are to be treated equally. It cannot be any other way as obvious biases would prevail and discriminant deaths would follow.
This fellow misses the point entirely about his chosen profession and should choose another one. Nobody should hire him in this capacity. Physicians do not get to play god and choose which sinners they agree to treat.
Dr. Lawrence Jensen is an internist. He refuses to treat gay patients. Jensen has explained to colleagues that his refusal has nothing to do with the fear of aids. Rather, he explains, he is religious and in his religion it is a sin to be homosexual. He says, “I just don’t feel right treating people who sin in that way.”
This is a real story presented and analyzed in Li Fellers, Ambulance Firm Faces Biased Suit, Chicago Tribune, May 9th, 2005.
Keep in mind the AMA code ethics provides the option of referring treatment physicians perceive as ethically adverse to another professional who may provide said treatment. This is meant to protect the ethical and religious integrity of medical practitioners.
Different U.S. states and the federal government have different statutes and jurisprudence regarding anti-discrimination policy. It can get very complicated and counter-intuitive. Where I live, most likely, he would be forced to provide service (though there may be certain exceptions available to him).
As for what I think should be the legal policies, as a general rule, I would say yes, he should be forced to provide service because of the kind of service he provides. I think that a state founded on the principle that each and every individual has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has a legitimate interest in preventing medical doctors from determining who among its equal citizens is worthy of medical care. True, this internist himself is so entitled to equal liberty, but policy is needed to resolve zero-sum conflicts between rights claims. In my mind, there might not be such an interest in preventing other private entrepreneurs from determining who is worthy of their products and services, but I don’t have a problem with regulations that tell, say, privately contracted pool lifeguards, pharmacists, medical doctors, emergency room staff, criminal defense attorneys, and other folks who provide services where people’s lives and health are on the line that they simply can’t judge the worthiness of their clientele. (That goes for everyone, by the way. I would still apply the same principle to, say, a liberal doctor who refused to treat a Ku Klux Klan member because he just didn’t want to get near such a vile individual.)
And if his avoidance of teh gay is just so important to his religious practice, in the interests of the nexus between freedom and equality I would champion, I suppose I’d be open to allowing him to practice medicine in a certain zone of a city, where he would be required to display signs indicating who can be expected to be turned away and on what basis.
Speaking as a healthcare professional, I don’t think anyone who cannot set their prejudices aside should be allowed to serve in direct patient care positions. Period.
“Primun non nocere”, which means “First, do no harm”, is part of the oath every physician takes. Turning away people who come to you for help just because they are gay and you have a religious rod up your ass IS DOING HARM to the individuals, their families, the communities they live in, the nation and the world. But people who are blinded by prejudices and idolatry think too highly of their own dogma to believe that a fellow human being in need should come before his invisible friend.
Personally I hope the guy ends up rotting in hell. (For the literalists out there that means I hope he ends up suffering miserably for his crimes against humanity.)
Dr. Lawrence Jensen is an internist. He refuses to treat gay patients. Jensen has explained to colleagues that his refusal has nothing to do with the fear of aids. Rather, he explains, he is religious and in his religion it is a sin to be homosexual. He says, “I just don’t feel right treating people who sin in that way.”
This is a real story presented and analyzed in Li Fellers, Ambulance Firm Faces Biased Suit, Chicago Tribune, May 9th, 2005.
Keep in mind the AMA code ethics provides the option of referring treatment physicians perceive as ethically adverse to another professional who may provide said treatment. This is meant to protect the ethical and religious integrity of medical practitioners.
Different U.S. states and the federal government have different statutes and jurisprudence regarding anti-discrimination policy. It can get very complicated and counter-intuitive. Where I live, most likely, he would be forced to provide service (though there may be certain exceptions available to him).
As for what I think should be the legal policies, as a general rule, I would say yes, he should be forced to provide service because of the kind of service he provides. I think that a state founded on the principle that each and every individual has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has a legitimate interest in preventing medical doctors from determining who among its equal citizens is worthy of medical care. True, this internist himself is so entitled to equal liberty, but policy is needed to resolve zero-sum conflicts between rights claims. In my mind, there might not be such an interest in preventing other private entrepreneurs from determining who is worthy of their products and services, but I don’t have a problem with regulations that tell, say, privately contracted pool lifeguards, pharmacists, medical doctors, emergency room staff, criminal defense attorneys, and other folks who provide services where people’s lives and health are on the line that they simply can’t judge the worthiness of their clientele. (That goes for everyone, by the way. I would still apply the same principle to, say, a liberal doctor who refused to treat a Ku Klux Klan member because he just didn’t want to get near such a vile individual.)
And if his avoidance of teh gay is just so important to his religious practice, in the interests of the nexus between freedom and equality I would champion, I suppose I’d be open to allowing him to practice medicine in a certain zone of a city, where he would be required to display signs indicating who can be expected to be turned away and on what basis.
I highly doubt he’d be forced to provide services. Forced to pay damages, civil penalties, and risk his licensure sounds more likely.
