I remember hearing a story similar to the one I heard on the news the night before last and I was just as horrified then as now. Here's the latest one:
A woman in our area was asked random questions from her pediatrician per usual. She hesitated over one question, thinking it was none of their business and didn't feel comfortable answering it. The question concerned owning firearms. She was asked if they had them in the home. She said there were no questions concerning knives, swimming pools, loose electrical cords etc that also pose a hazard to young children. So why ask about guns? What does that question have to do with anything?
She was then given discharge papers giving her 30 days to find another pediatrician. Her kids were being discharged from his care effective immediately. She knew it was because she didn't answer that one question. I remember this happening a few years ago concerning someone I knew. Only they asked the young pre-teen if her parents had guns in the house and the parents were outraged.
The news reported that the American Pediatric Association does push doctors to question parents about owning guns and they also recommend that doctors influence parents to get rid of any firearms in the home.
Yesterday it was reported on the news that two 2 year olds were near death as a result of a backyard swimming pool and an unattentive parent. One of the toddlers has since died and the other is on life support. This is like the third or fourth time I've heard of toddler deaths involving backyard pools in just a couple of months.
So why not question that? Most parents do have their guns locked away in a safe place. You can't do that with a pool as easily.
The other thing that I find interesting is the fact there is nothing this lady can do. She can't go after the doctor for discrimination or anything or force him to take her children as patients. There is no law against it. I happen to agree with that although I would have to question the whole hippocratic oath thing and wonder why he's even in the profession in the first place.
The reason I find all this interesting is the fact that I wrote about a similar case only it had to do with a gay couple. Wishing to be married they went to a Christian photographer who refused their business on religious grounds. The photographer believed that marriage between two men was against the laws of God. The photographer was fined by the court thousands of dollars for discrimination even though she claimed religious reasons for not taking the gay couple's business.
While I agree that the doctor should have the right to choose who to treat and not to treat (may his conscience be his guide) I also agree along the same vein that this Christian photographer should have the right to also pick and choose which clients she will work with.
Why is ok here but not there? Am I missing something? Where is the equal justice under the law? It certainly looks like some do have special rights and some don't.