╌>

"Your doctor prayed on it and decided she won’t see you'all today"

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  johnrussell  •  6 years ago  •  67 comments

"Your doctor prayed on it and decided she won’t see you'all today"



Doctor Refused to Treat Newborn After ‘Praying’ for Her Lesbian Parents and It’s 100% Legal  


contreras.png






















Author: Mark Walker | Crime, LGBT Issues



A lesbian couple’s newborn baby experienced discrimination after getting denied care over her parents’ sexual orientation. Now the Michigan-based parents are speaking out in a new campaign to tell their story of how discrimination was made 100 percent legal, WFTS reports.


Despite their best efforts to avoid discrimination, Michigan mothers Jami and Krista Contreras dealt with exactly that three years ago when they took their newborn baby daughter to the doctor but was denied care.


Their pediatrician then cited “prayer” on why she decided to turn away their infant daughter, who was just six days old at the time. “Another doctor walked in and then she said, ‘your doctor prayed on it and decided she won’t see you all today,'” Krista Contreras said.


The stunned married couple looked into whether or not the pediatrician’s decision was legal and found out that it was. Michigan is one of 31 states that haven’t banned discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in public accommodations, housing, and employment, the couple said.


The incident drew public outrage and national media coverage. The couple is now involved in efforts to fight LGBT discrimination in the new “Beyond I do” campaign that aims to increase awareness about the issues the LGBTQ community faces.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    6 years ago
Michigan is one of 31 states that haven’t banned discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in public accommodations, housing, and employment, the couple said.
 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 years ago

They have the choice of going to another doctor, or is this simply another case of gay or lesbian people want to start a lawsuit. A doctor can decline to see patients for all kinds of reasons.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    6 years ago
A doctor can decline to see patients for all kinds of reasons.

Usually the reason is legitimate. A hangup about the parents sexual orientation is hardly one of them. Especially if it could affect the child.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
1.1.2  zuksam  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.1    6 years ago

Would you really want to put your life in the hands of a Doctor who is being forced by Law to take you on as a patient.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  zuksam @1.1.2    6 years ago
Would you really want to put your life in the hands of a Doctor who is being forced by Law to take you on as a patient.

You mean like black folks and non-Christians do every day in the confederate states?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @1.1.2    6 years ago
Would you really want to put your life in the hands of a Doctor who is being forced by Law to take you on as a patient.

As long as the doctor adheres to their medical oath and standard of ethics. Otherwise, they could find themselves in a situation of malpractice or breach of ethics. Neither does their professional status very well.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.5  epistte  replied to  Skrekk @1.1.3    6 years ago
You mean like black folks and non-Christians do every day in the confederate states?

I don't live in a Confederate state and I was once referred to a Dr who wanted me to pray with him at the start of the appointment. When I refused to he suggested that he could do more for me if I were to pay in cash, despite the fact that I had medical insurance that he previously said that he accepted.   We fought over the payment of the bill for 90 days until he relented and accepted little more than a co-pay. I found out later this was SOP for this schmuck.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.6  Skrekk  replied to  epistte @1.1.5    6 years ago

That's bizarre.    I hope you reported his behavior because it's a rather blatant violation of the Civil Rights Act, plus whatever state laws and medical ethics guidelines might apply.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  epistte @1.1.5    6 years ago

I'm fairly sure that if he was contracted with an insurance company, he was required to submit a claim to that company rather than demand payment in cash, so long as the service provided was a covered service.  I'd be willing to bet he was in breach of contract.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 years ago

Didn't this doctor refer this couple to another doctor within the same medical office?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 years ago

1-fc55add492.jpg

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    6 years ago

Does an apology really count if you continue with the offense? "I'm sorry for the pain I caused you by rejecting you as a patient, but I'm still not going to accept you." I get that this was an attempt to explain things away, but none of it addresses the heart of the issue which is a pediatrician claiming, before she got to know the family, that she couldn't develop a personal doctor patient relationship purely based on their sexual orientation. Then the doctor claims they aren't judging. This apology was purely to appease the doctors conscience after feeling guilty, it has nothing to do with actually reaching out to this couple and their child. If you read this letter and imagine the doctor didn't think they could develop a personal doctor patient relationship because the couple was interracial it makes it easier to see that this letter does nothing but attempts to justify their bigotry.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
1.2.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 years ago
Didn't this doctor refer this couple to another doctor within the same medical office?

are you suggesting that you agree and condone what this doctor did ?

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
2  Freefaller    6 years ago

Surprising, I'm no biblical expert but punishing the child for the (supposed) sin of the parents doesn't seem to be something Jesus would have been supportive of. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Freefaller @2    6 years ago

I suppose if it were an emergency the doctor would have to take the patient, but that just sets up a slippery slope doesn't it?   What if you refuse a patient and then the child gets really sick , aren't you going to be liable for some sort of malpractice? 

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Freefaller  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    6 years ago

Actually in an emergency I would hope the parents took their child to a hospital emergency room rather than some private practice. 

I don't know enough of the law to answer your malpractice question

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    6 years ago

If it's an emergency, they can also go to the ER, where they have to be treated. It's in no way punishing the child.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    6 years ago
If it's an emergency, they can also go to the ER, where they have to be treated. It's in no way punishing the child.

The idea of seeing a doctor before hand is to identify any issues before they become an emergency.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.1.4  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    6 years ago
If it's an emergency, they can also go to the ER, where they have to be treated. It's in no way punishing the child.

You missed the point. The child isn't gay. The bigoted Dr has a problem with LGBT people but she is punishing the child because of her personal problem with child's parents. The DR needs to grow up and be an adult.  Religion has no place in medicine.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    6 years ago
What if you refuse a patient and then the child gets really sick , aren't you going to be liable for some sort of malpractice?

No.

But it's still unethical.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Freefaller @2    6 years ago
(supposed) sin of the parents doesn't seem to be something Jesus would have been supportive of.

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die. After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. On the seventh day the child died." - 2 Samuel 12:13-18

So is the God of the Hebrews, Yahweh, the same God as Jesus? Many claim they are one in the same, a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They also say God is unchanging and perfect, yet the two personalities could not be more opposite as presented between the Old Testament and the New.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.3  bbl-1  replied to  Freefaller @2    6 years ago

"Supposed sin of the parents."  ? ?

Nah.  The sin was committed by the christian taliban doctor.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
2.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freefaller @2    6 years ago
Surprising, I'm no biblical expert but punishing the child for the (supposed) sin of the parents doesn't seem to be something Jesus would have been supportive of.

Won't speak for Jesus but this verse in the bible certain suggests "god" had no problem with it:

The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.'
Numbers: 14-18

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
2.4.1  Freefaller  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.4    6 years ago

Yep the mythical old gods are known for being pretty barbaric and cruel when the mood strikes them

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Freefaller @2    6 years ago
Surprising, I'm no biblical expert but punishing the child for the (supposed) sin of the parents doesn't seem to be something Jesus would have been supportive of.

Kidding, Jesus never even said anything opposing homosexuality.  Jesus said, "love thy neighbor".  He did not say, "love thy neighbor except....".

Matthew 22:36-40 King James Version (KJV)

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Participates
3  Larry Hampton    6 years ago

WHAT THE @#%^%$$#%*^&$#anger ?!

She prays and Jesus says "Fuk dat baby"?!

Give me a fricken' break.

 
 
 
Explorerdog
Freshman Silent
4  Explorerdog    6 years ago

I expect the "dr." would be outraged if she were discriminated against for her superstitious beliefs.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
4.1  Skrekk  replied to  Explorerdog @4    6 years ago

Plus that would be illegal even in a regressive red state like Michigan.    Seems like bible-babblers are always demanding special rights and privileged status.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
5  Randy    6 years ago

I am from Michigan. And this is yet another good reason I am "From" Michigan and living in California. I left there almost 30 years ago and moved originally to Arizona (but always knew it was just a stop over for California) I told my father that it was either going to be the biggest mistake of my life or the best decision I have ever made. While there have been a few regrets, it has been the best decision of my life. I love the beauty of Michigan. The scenery, the lakes, the forests and don't get me wrong there are some wonderful people there, but over all it just plain too redneck now that so many people have followed jobs South and South West. Laws like this and the Governor it has shows it seems determined to stay in the 19th century.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
5.1  epistte  replied to  Randy @5    6 years ago
I am from Michigan. And this is yet another good reason I am "From" Michigan and living in California. I left there almost 30 years ago and moved originally to Arizona (but always knew it was just a stop over for California) I told my father that it was either going to be the biggest mistake of my life or the best decision I have ever made. While there have been a few regrets, it has been the best decision of my life. I love the beauty of Michigan. The scenery, the lakes, the forests and don't get me wrong there are some wonderful people there, but over all it just plain too redneck now that so many people have followed jobs South and South West. Laws like this and the Governor it has shows it seems determined to stay in the 19th century.

Rick Synder didn't help the situation. Granholm tried to help but the 2008 crash overwhelmed her.

Kasich has just made the problem worse in Ohio with his idiocy. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  epistte @5.1    6 years ago

Granholm's self inflicted stupidity that ruined her. Her single business tax was the dumbest decision ever- it left Michigan far behind all of the surrounding states.  It kept companies like Toyota and Honda out.

Of course she loved her leftist coast movie friends with tax break to come to Michigan to shoot; her push to bring in "Green jobs"- that never showed up; and her love affair with casinos, lotteries.  Anything to milk people out of more money.  All of which cost tax payers big. 

For Michigan taxpayers, the program, which launched in 2008, has been a colossal   flop . After delivering hundreds of millions of Michigan taxpayer dollars to film studios, there were   102 fewer   film industry jobs in this state, according to federal employment statistics. Other states' film incentive programs have also been shown to be a waste.

"Scholars across the spectrum agree that subsidizing filmmaking is a waste of taxpayer dollars,” said James Hohman, the assistant director of fiscal policy with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “We applaud Michigan legislators and the governor for eliminating this program."

Ultimately, the Legislature’s and the governor’s decision to pull the plug mirrors popular sentiment.   Polling results   released by the Mackinac Center and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in May showed that 66 percent of voters favored diverting film subsidy money to road repairs.

There is a reason the Democratic Party wouldn't support her running for the Senate in Michigan.  CA can keep her.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
5.1.2  Randy  replied to  epistte @5.1    6 years ago
Rick Synder didn't help the situation.

It's Rick Snyder and once again I must point out that, while our last names are spelled the same, I am not a relation to that prick!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
5.1.3  epistte  replied to  Randy @5.1.2    6 years ago
t's Rick Snyder and once again I must point out that,

I'm quite sorry for the typo. I hope that I didn't suggest that you might be related to him. 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
7  Phoenyx13    6 years ago

Their pediatrician then cited “prayer” on why she decided to turn away their infant daughter, who was just six days old at the time. “Another doctor walked in and then she said, ‘your doctor prayed on it and decided she won’t see you all today,'” Krista Contreras said.

actually, i think a few people here on NT would applaud the doctor and would have done the same thing in that position.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8  bbl-1    6 years ago

Murica rising.  The cross is the weapon.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
8.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  bbl-1 @8    6 years ago
The cross is the weapon.

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes (authorship unknown):

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8.1    6 years ago

Sinclair Lewis.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
8.1.2  Randy  replied to  bbl-1 @8.1.1    6 years ago

...and picking your pockets...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
9  Paula Bartholomew    6 years ago

The AMA needs to seriously get involved with this. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
9.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    6 years ago

The AMA has no authority or provenance in something like this.  This would be a matter for the state's medical licensing board. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
9.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @9    6 years ago
The AMA needs to seriously get involved with this.

My thought would be a civil action, since what she did actually violated the Religious law she claimed as the reason for refusal.  Unless she is not a Christian and is following the Old Testament instead.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
9.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @9.2    6 years ago

Had something happened to the child after her refusal, she would have violated her hipocratic oath to do no harm.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
9.2.2  epistte  replied to  Ozzwald @9.2    6 years ago
My thought would be a civil action, since what she did actually violated the Religious law she claimed as the reason for refusal.

If I were them I would publish the name of the doctor and let the public shame them. They would either recant and apologize or move. Hospitals might refuse them privileges because of this action.

Oakland is fairly liberal and affluent, especially for Michigan, and this would not be supported by the masses.  This might be permissible in western Militiagan, but it wouldn't be accepted in this area or Washtenaw(Ann Arbor) County.

 
 
 
DocPhil
Sophomore Quiet
9.2.3  DocPhil  replied to  epistte @9.2.2    6 years ago

These bible thumpers who are willing to put the health and welfare of others at risk because of their prayers should be publicly shamed. Maybe if enough people see this, this pediatrician would find herself working with baby petunias instead of humans. She is a disgrace to her oath and to the bible she supposedly believes in.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
9.2.4  epistte  replied to  DocPhil @9.2.3    6 years ago
These bible thumpers who are willing to put the health and welfare of others at risk because of their prayers should be publicly shamed. Maybe if enough people see this, this pediatrician would find herself working with baby petunias instead of humans. She is a disgrace to her oath and to the bible she supposedly believes in.

Let this thumper go work in a private Catholic hospital where they also discriminate on the basis of religion and sexuality.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
9.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  epistte @9.2.4    6 years ago
they also discriminate on the basis of religion and sexuality.

No they don't, but they won't do abortions.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
9.2.6  epistte  replied to  Greg Jones @9.2.5    6 years ago
No they don't, but they won't do abortions.

Catholic hospitals do discriminate.  They admit that they do permit it.

Catholic officials are supporting last week’s announcement that the Department Health and Human Services’s new division on religious liberty will allow health professionals to deny some medical services to LGBT patients,

Last week, in the latest move by the Trump administration undermining LGBT rights, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the formation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. As part of the Department’s civil rights office, the division is designed to protect healthcare providers who say their consciences or religious beliefs do not permit them to perform certain medical services

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
9.2.7  Skrekk  replied to  epistte @9.2.2    6 years ago
If I were them I would publish the name of the doctor and let the public shame them.

Yep - the names of that doctor and that clinic need to be spread far and wide so that ethical folks know not to go there.

 
 
 
LynneA
Freshman Silent
10  LynneA    6 years ago

Another Christian testimony showing the love of Jesus and wondering why they're greeted with such disdain.  Perhaps more prayer is required to get the voices out of her head and start practicing with her HEART!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
10.1  Raven Wing  replied to  LynneA @10    6 years ago

applause  thumbs up

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
10.1.1  Randy  replied to  Raven Wing @10.1    6 years ago

applause applause

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
10.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  LynneA @10    6 years ago

She's probably happy with her decision and it was legal. If she makes leftists cry because they can't make her their slave more power to her. 

 
 
 
LynneA
Freshman Silent
10.2.1  LynneA  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2    6 years ago
She's probably happy with her decision and it was legal.

Her happiness was never at issue and I agree her decision was legal. 

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
10.2.2  Pedro  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.2    6 years ago

She's happy with her decision to use religion as a reason not to treat a child? I'm thinking adoration of this doctor might not be the best look for a person.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
11  Hal A. Lujah    6 years ago

It’s nice that the doctor was so up front about her bigotry, as it gives the potential client the news they need to make the best decision about finding the best doctor to care for their baby.  I wouldn’t let this doctor take my kid’s temperature.  Imagine being black, and a new doctor’s first words are “hello, I hate niggers”.  Or being Jewish, and your new doctor’s first words are “hello, the holocaust never happened.”  I’d say they dodged a bullet.

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
12  Pedro    6 years ago

So, this doctor decided to say "Fuck that child" because the kids parents are gay. That does seem noble.....

 
 
 
Pedro
Professor Participates
13  Pedro    6 years ago

"Michigan is one of 31 states that haven’t banned discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in public accommodations, housing, and employment, the couple said."

hmmm, legal discrimination. I heard on like Fox news or something that this is fake news....

 
 
 
luther28
Sophomore Silent
14  luther28    6 years ago

Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

I do not see anything here that would suggest turning away a child for whatever reason.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14.1  devangelical  replied to  luther28 @14    6 years ago

Religious hypocrite violates Hippocratic oath.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
15  Skrekk    6 years ago

I wonder if this doctor has separate waiting rooms for whites and blacks and for gays and straights?    A True Christian would.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
16  Thrawn 31    6 years ago

Lol man religion makes people stupid. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
16.1  Gordy327  replied to  Thrawn 31 @16    6 years ago

And vice versa.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
17  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    6 years ago

The Declaration of Geneva is an oath taken by graduating students at many US medical schools, including top ten schools Harvard, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins.  The Declaration is an updated Hippocratic oath and is revised when necessary to reflect current attitudes with respect to cultural issues and human rights.

AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

Who would trust a physician that could so flagrantly disregard any part of this declaration? 

In any event, I think Jami and Krista Contreras should consider themselves extremely fortunate that this 'doctor' chose to be so obvious with her bigotry. 

 
 

Who is online


Igknorantzruls
evilone


97 visitors