Christian doctor refuses to treat child of tattooed mother
In Bakersfield, California, a pediatrician turned away a little girl because her mother had a tattoo. He said it was because of his ‘Christian’ beliefs. Personally, I don’t ever remember hearing a commandment of “thou shalt not help anyone who might be related to someone who has a tattoo.”
“I felt totally discriminated against, like I wasn’t good enough to talk to,” Tasha Childress said, “like he didn’t have to give me any reason for not wanting to see my daughter because I have tattoos and piercings.”
The little girl had to suffer through the night because her insurance policy referred her to this man.
This man isn’t a doctor, he’s a megalomaniac. He’s too concerned with his own power to actually do the right thing.
Merrill said he will continue to enforce the rules he has in place, which even include no chewing gum in his office.
He said if they don’t like his beliefs, they can find another doctor.
PZ Myers brings up a good point:
Way to represent your faith, doc! He ought to read the Gospel of Luke—there’s an obscure story in there about some guy beaten up and left to die by the road, and a priest and a Levite, the people Dr Merrill must model his life after, walk by and leave him there to die. He can stop reading right there, though…there’s some other bit that follows with a fellow from Samaria that isn’t all that important.
Further evidence to me that those who are more sanctimonious about their beliefs, are more likely not to have any idea about what the Bible actually says.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6
First, whatever happened to those basic Christian principles like “love thy neighbor” or and the importance of forgiveness, etc??
Things like this make me embarrassed to be soon entering this profession. I just hope people realize there are plenty of docs doing great work every day; they just don’t make the news for it.
A lot of med schools are adding in a heavy helping of ethics these days and I think it’s a good move (though sometimes it makes me wonder if it just helps the unethical people figure out how to get around the rules). While I do believe strongly in the right for any physician to refuse to care for a patient for whatever reason – that’s why we all love America so much guys – as a physician you aren’t a god yourself and you must follow some rules. In fact, your primary role is serving to provide for the well-being of your patients and what this doctor did was tantamount to deserting his patient.
“A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.”
Although we have the right to refuse care to anyone for whatever reason, what must always come first is the patient’s well-being over our own judgments. By turning that mother and child away (I will admit that was a ridiculous reason, holding a little girl responsible for the “sins” of her mother? Geez!) he could have caused her serious harm by making her wait to seek care elsewhere. He did not refer her directly to his buddy Dr. Smith next-door, he just turned them away, period (as far as I can tell anyway). The least he could have done was examined her ear to make sure she wasn’t on the brink of some catastrophe (meningitis or hearing loss, for example) before sending them away. I don’t really know if what was probably a simple ear infection really qualifies as an “emergency” as that’s a very subjective term, but using some common sense in this situation could have gone a long way. This innocent little girl had to spend another night in pain - great “standards” doc!
shauna
February 27th, 2007
7:34 pm
I suppose there’s a fine line between freedom of expression/association and doing your job. I guess it seems to me that you really need a better reason than “your mommy has tattoos.” I can see, perhaps some sort of ethical reason for denying care to, say, a child molester. But a child itself? I definitely want to support personal freedom, but I think discrimination is something else. What about denying care to a black man or a Jew? Would that still be allowed?
Shinka
February 27th, 2007
10:31 pm
If an ear infection can really lead to meningitis or hearing loss and he simply turned them away, I think that is negligence. What if the little girl had developed either during the night because she had no medicine?
Lynette
February 28th, 2007
4:59 pm
He should have at least checked her to make sure she wasn’t in emergent need of care, I’m not disputing that. But you have to keep in mind those are rare complications, the majority of ear infections will pass on their own without any kind of treatment.
Shauna
February 28th, 2007
7:28 pm