Transgender Woman Sues Hospital

[BossTamsin (imported)]

Actually I know Charlene personally and I even happen to see her this very evening. I can't imagine that she went out of her way to find a hospital that would deny her request for surgery. What actually took place between her and the hospital is unknown to me as I did not want to pry but I would tend to think the article is poorly worded if it has given any one the impression that she was looking for a reason to sue.

I apologize, no disrespect was intended. I was merely pointing out that the way that article was worded, such a position was possible. It is very good to hear that she is pursuing this for reasons other than those I had incorrectly assumed.

For a lot of people it is not always possible to simply goto another hospital or clinic if they are on some sort of health plan or wish to use a doctor they have come to trust and rely on. The other issue is whether or not this should actually be considered elective surgery. Normally I would say breast augmentation is elective, but in the case of some one who is being treated for Gender Dysphoria or Body Dismorphia this may part of their prescribed treatment.

In San Francisco there are laws to insure that people are able to obtain medical treatment regardless of gender, but this incident took place in Daily City which is just to the south, so it's likely that the only laws that apply are State and federal.

I think she is within her rights to pursue this lawsuit and I support her completely.

The Catholic Church, like many Christian organizations is, and shall likely always remain a mystery to me. Personally I cannot reconcile the teachings such as the 'Golden Rule' with the general attitude of intolerance, if not outright hatred and judgement, that many of its members display.

Personally, I still feel that religious organizations should be allowed to practise in the manner which they feel is best. However, that being said, they should be open and upfront about such behaviour. They should also be willing to accept the consequences of such actions, whether that be public censure, a complete withdrawal of public funding, or the punishment for the violation of any laws they abrogate in the pursuit of such ideals.

And make no mistake, I am all for the complete revocation of any and all public funding, handouts, or special privileges for any and all organizations who practise discriminatory behaviour. If their beliefs are so strong as to prohibit them from treating everyone equally, then they should also be strong enough to stand on their own two feet to defend such practises. Whether it's a Catholic hospital, a single doctor, or the Boy Scouts.

And should, somehow, their 'high ethical standards' result in a death, then I should hope that the same standards would also comfort them through the resulting criminal and civil charges.

[jemagirl (imported)]

I apologize, no disrespect was intended. I was merely pointing out that the way that article was worded, such a position was possible. It is very good to hear that she is pursuing this for reasons other than those I had incorrectly assumed.

No need to apologize. I was not offended and I had figured it was poor writing on the part of the author.

And make no mistake, I am all for the complete revocation of any and all public funding, handouts, or special privileges for any and all organizations who practise discriminatory behaviour. If their beliefs are so strong as to prohibit them from treating everyone equally, then they should also be strong enough to stand on their own two feet to defend such practises. Whether it's a Catholic hospital, a single doctor, or the Boy Scouts.

I'm with you on this one. In fact I wonder if that hospital receives public funding as so many do. I have always felt that when the government spends the people's money they dam well ought to make sure it is being spent fairly.

[Charis (imported)]

Hospitals should despense medical services and Churches should tend to the spiritual needs of the community. I don't want a pastor or preacher performing surgery on me nor a Doctor telling me God's will.

[Paolo]

Charis, I feel the same way.

The local town hospital here will only deliver a baby now if there is NO way to get the laboring mother 33 miles west to the "big city".

Why?

It was taken over by the Catholics, in a chain of their hospitals, and all doctors on staff were required to sign a contract saying that they would not advise or provide birth control, advise or do abortions, la la la...the whole "every egg/sperm is sacred" thing - think Monty Python.

They all refused.

Major lawsuits happened.

The end result - the hospital stopped offering the service.

You can't have a baby in this town now.

As for the other topic of this person being refused service - for one, it was not life saving operation or procedure. If they are a private corporation, I feel that they have every right to refuse service. Not that they would have the right to, say, refuse treatment of a traumatic amputation of limb, or a major heart attack. There is a difference. You can't force them into providing that service when it isn't an emergency. I still think they had the right to refuse, but I DO disagree with it on the basis of religion being the catalyst. Churches have no business running hospitals and such. But there is a big difference in doing a boob job and having a baby.

And while it is certainly not the same thing, I have every right to refuse service to anyone who seeks out my skills in my trade.

Just yesterday, as badly as I need to book another wedding, I tossed "Bridezilla" out the front door when she took on that total "I'm a city bitch and I can't believe this small town and I can't believe everything isn't free!" attitude.

I also refused to have anything to do with a couple who wanted a nude studio session the other day. While they were of age and it was all totally legal, it is my right to not have to look at wrinkly cocks and saggy boobs for the sake of a buck.

[MacTheWolf (imported)]

Damn, now I have to cancel the Freak Shoot we were planning in Paolo's living room this Saturday. Telling the guys dressed as chickens isn't a problem but what do I do with the camel, mongoose and platapus I rented for the day not to mention the fact I'm stuck with a fifty gallon drum of Crisco.

Hmmmmm...maybe Kristoff might......nah

[plix (imported)]

If I was a ER physician, who happened to be a Jehovah's Witness, I could deny a patient a blood transfusion because, according to my faith, I know that procedure to be immoral. So I'd have to let the patient die.

Isn't it nice how physicians can use their religious beliefs to deny patients rights to life or happiness...hooray for religious doctors (satire).

Obviously the rules are different in an emergency situation. My beliefs are that a doctor or hospital does not have the right to deny emergency treatment to anyone for any reason, but that if there is enough time to get the person to another hospital before death or serious complications develop, then a private hospital does have the right to deny treatment. Obviously refusal to perform breast augmentation will not cause death or serious complications, so the hospital has every right to deny to perform it.

So for me even if this is not an "elective surgery", which I believe most cases of transgender breast augmentation are elective surgery (in contrast to hormones or SRS, which I believe are not elective), that is not the issue. I would also grant a private hospital the right to deny non-elective, medically necessary treatment so long as another hospital was available before death or serious complications develop.

As far as "unconditional love and compassion" and "intolerance" go, unconditional love does not mean approval of sin, which is what the hospital believes the woman is doing. You do not have to tell a pedophile "it's OK to molest children" in order to have unconditional love for him or be tolerant of him. So this hospital believes it also does not have to tell this person "it's OK to become a woman" in order to have unconditional love for her or be tolerant of her.

You can love someone unconditionally without approving of what the person is doing. So many people make the mistake of thinking that "unconditional love" and "compassion" mean unconditional approval of whatever someone wants to do. This simply is not true, and this is an unfortunate mistake to make.

[mrt (imported)]

I think we have to accept that doctors have some personal issues. I know this is a tired analogy but its still the easiest one to point out the problem with "forcing" doctors to perform services.

I'm thinking of course about 1930s and 1940s Germany and the laws that made it mandatory to sterlize the "unwanted" and later to kill and experiment on them. Saying its a law doesn't make it more important then right and wrong and sadly being human assumes your not perfect.

There was a guy on the radio that said that while he was not anti abortion if you really felt it was murder you had an obligation to be very serious about stopping it. He said that the reason Hitler and his henchmen got away with "Murder" was that they tied it up in pretty laws. Maybe 10 years from now we will all wonder why we didn't march against late term abortion (or whatever) and people will ask "What the hell was wrong with you? Didn't you know???"

I really dunno.... I think its a good topic to ponder however.

Now, as to nixing augmentations for our TS friends? I think its stupid and Discrimination in a very poor form. However I don't know the whole story. Is it as simple as insurance or??? I know Medica was sued for not providing SRS services and they lost. So there is one health insurance that now does cover this as more then a "elective cosmetic" surgery.

[kristoff]

Damn, now I have to cancel the Freak Shoot we were planning in Paolo's living room this Saturday. Telling the guys dressed as chickens isn't a problem but what do I do with the camel, mongoose and platapus I rented for the day not to mention the fact I'm stuck with a fifty gallon drum of Crisco.

Hmmmmm...maybe Kristoff might......nah

Did someone say Crisco Party?

[jemagirl (imported)]

After reading people's responses and giving this some more though, I've come to a slightly different conclusion.

Yes a hospital should be able to choose not to perform operations which it feels are improper or immoral. However as the hospital does allow this surgery to be performed on genetic women, it is apparently not the surgery itself which they consider to be immoral. Charlene was denied surgery solely based on her status as a transgendered woman and in California that is illegal.

Had the hospital not stated the reason they were denying Charlene's surgery she would haver had a hard time finding the lawyer to take her case. Further if the hospital had chosen not to perform this surgery at all, for any one, Charlene would also not have a legal leg to stand on, but the hospital denied her based on the fact that she was born with a penis, saying "God made you a man." This violates the law of the land. Whatever any one might think about the hospitals rights are or what they should be, in California we do not allow this sort of discrimination.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation. Other State laws relating to prohibitions of discrimination based on disability include California Civil Codes Sections 54 through 55.2

If the hospital wants to change the law they have every right to advocate their point of view, but they are still bound by the same laws as every other business in California when it comes to discrimination.