Comments on: Mother's Day Stadium Promotion: What's "Frivolous" About It?

By: dolphin

dolphin — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 03:27:36 +0000

mahndisa,

The danger in allowing a doctor to artbitrarily refuse treatment to anyone at any time is simple: a person inchs from death shouldn't have to worry if his or her doctor is suddenly going to stop treating them.

If a doctor wants to refuse treatment for a patient, they need to make that known from the beginning. IF a doctor begins treatment but then later refuses to complete it, you're left with a situation that, in some cases, means certian death for the patient.

By: mahndisa

mahndisa — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:28:40 +0000

08 19 06

Kip the link you cited above is ~~broken~~ fixed. While ethically, I have issues with the Unruh laws, if they weren't there you would see a lot more cases like the Benitez case. Speaking of that, if one is a champion for free market ideals, why not cast physicians in the role of professionals? Physicians should be able to choose their clientale, just as we can choose our physicians based upon market concerns etc. That being said, the doctor's actions in the Benitez case were justified because he or she can refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time, that is if that doctor is in business for him or herself right? Good post, many different ideas floating around here...

By: Phillip Mendelsohn

Phillip Mendelsohn — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:18:21 +0000

California's "monstrous" Unruh Act (California Civil Code section 51) is also the law the California Supreme Court will construe in a pending case to hopefully rule that a physician does *not* have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of that patient's sexual orientation. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (Benitez), No. S142892, review granted (June 14, 2006, Cal.)

The facts of this case are particularly egregious; I was involved in litigating the case at an earlier stage in the California Court of Appeal. After treating Guadalupe Benitez for 14 months to help her conceive a child, her gynecologist "dumped" her at the height of her fertility cycle and refused to perform an intra-uterine procedure, solely because Ms. Benitez was a lesbian (the doctor knew this all along). Since all the other doctors at the office "went to the same church," Ms. Benitez was forced to go to an "off-plan" doctor (there was only one participating provider under her insurance for Obstetrics/Gynecology in North Orange County), and spend considerable amounts of money to receive medical care, solely because of her sexual orientation. See, Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. (2002) 106 Cal.App.4th 978.

[Kip replies: What makes Unruh "monstrous" is not so much the guarantees it afford but its vindictive and irrational punitive provisions.

Walk into a bar, order a beer for $5 on Ladies Night, and get $4,000 in damages for "anti-male discrimination"? Um, no. Especially when you're a "professional Unruh plaintiff" hunting for such opportunities.

I have blogged about the situation you describe in the context of pharmacists.

I think a similar analysis (essentially "detrimental reliance") could apply to physicians, especially the fact pattern you describe. There is also the whole question of licensure and ethics codes.]

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:35:29 +0000

Of course, if there were fewer lawyers around such laws would pose no problem.

Go figure.

The issue is not that legislators pass frivolous laws; it's that lawyers exploit those laws.