fritzy,
Personally, I would gladly live in a world where we could afford to deny medical degrees to those who hold ridiculous, delusional and unscientific religious beliefs. However, being more practical than idealistic, I realize that in a world where the majority possess some sort of religious belief we would be very short of doctors should we be so selective.
When you use the words “simply because” it appears that you minimize the danger such beliefs can pose to patients and the health care system. Certain beliefs are more vile than others when it comes to the practice of medicine and perhaps our licensing bodies should take more precaution when handing out degrees. A Roman Catholic doctor who believes in demon-possession may
very well misdiagnose a patient who has symptoms of epilepsy and prescribe some exorcism which would definitely harm that patient. The RC doctors who deny a vasectomy to a patient may be harming the man’s wife by not preventing an unwanted pregnancy that could endanger her health after she has already birthed 7 children.
I might even go so far as to wonder if a doctor who believes in the power of prayer may be less careful about his surgical skills or the medications he prescribes because down deep he believes the patient will benefit from the prayers of family. Do people behave less cautiously when they believe angels are watching over them? I think yes.

Our civil rights should not interfere with the civil rights of others or cause harm to them. This, unfortunately, seems to be an ideal that we will likely never achieve.

I’m no lawyer, but I do work in medicine, and I have to agree with Paz–unfortunately. The hospital does have every right, and in fact a NEED to know what proceedures are performed on their patients–the HIPAA laws extend patient privacy to those who have no need to know your medical history–the hospital needs to know about all it’s patients. In fact, if a MD performs surgery or prescribes a medicine under the umbrella of a particular health care institution without documenting it in his records (and therefore the hospital’s records) he is breaking the law.

As far as being fired for performing a proceedure prohibited by the institution–Paz is right–it would be in the MD’s contract. The Dr doesn’t have to personally agree with the morality of this prohibition, but if it is in the contract, he can be terminated for breaking the contract.

Lynda said: “I know it’s a screwed up system. Personally, I don’t think anyone who believes in religious dogma that has no scientific basis should be seen as qualified to receive licensing as a doctor. But who am I to question the decisions of the medical establishment?”

While I would agree if you replaced the word “doctor” with “health care institution,” I can’t agree with your statement as it stands–that’s openning up the door for all sorts of discrimination. While I would not peronally choose to knowingly go to a religious fucktard Dr., I would not want to live in a country where such a person was denied a medical degree simply because of his religious fucktard beliefs.

As far as these girls go–The school probably was w/in their legal rights to expell these young ladies. It just shows how fucked up religion is, and how cowtowing to it legally is destructive.

I agree. These girls have really been let down by the legal system.

You cannot force, by the rule of law, a Catholic doctor to perform a vasectomy or a Jewish doctor to work on Shabbos. That would be an infringement of their civil rights.

The hospital is not an individual possessing civil rights. To forbid a doctor from performing a legal procedure when he/she has no religious belief against performing a procedure is an infringement of that doctor’s civil rights. I understood that the Sacred Heart Hospital would “fire” a doctor for providing a vasectomy to his patient. This is an infringement of that doctor’s civil rights.

We’re drifting away from the issue at hand here, which is not about hospitals but about whether privately funded institutions have the right to set whatever criteria they see fit in their admission policy. Not only is the answer yes, but the court record is also yes. I’m researching the school’s actual admissions policy and bylaws now; they’re hard to come by given the public attention the school’s getting currently, but I can tell you that the mission statement on their website alone is enough to make you realize these are seriously wacky fundies and there’s simply no ambiguity about their stance on homosexuality.

What there IS ambiguity about in this case is the girls alleged “suspected sexual orientation”. I think that bringing a case against the school for wrongfully dismissing the girls without sufficient cause is a far greater case than anti-discrimination. The girls were completely right in citing their privacy and not disclosing any information. It’s the school’s claim, and they must show cause for dismissal. Whether the girls actually are or aren’t gay is really moot.

Hospitals that fire doctors on the basis of provision of a totally LEGAL medical procedure should lose their licenses and/or permits to operate as hospitals. The state has no business giving licenses to facilities that restrict services on the basis of religious beliefs, either of the patient or the doctors. The very admission that they will not do certain legal procedures indicates that they are unfit to provide services, which should always be based on good science, not some doctrine proposed by a priest.

Uh… Lynda… doctors who work at a hospital are under contract with the hospital, and hospitals keep strict records of all procedures performed under their roof. How else would it manage itself? If a doctor has his own practice and has the facilities in his office to do the required procedure, then he can do it at his office, but otherwise he schedules the patient at a local hospital with which he has a contract. The files remain private property of the hospital, but of course they have to know. The patient/doctor confidentiality agreement extends to whatever facilities the patient AND doctor agree to use to seek additional medical care, and that’s why whenever you go to a surgery center, lab clinic, or diagnostics center on the advice of your doctor, you sign papers stating such.

My gastroenterologist scheduled me for an upper endoscopy at a surgery center outside of his office. I went there and they performed the endoscopy. How, may I ask, would you propose the surgery center perform the procedure without knowing that they’re performing the procedure?