Peer Response 2

When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation.

In your response post to your fellow student, try to articulate an opposing position on the ethical issue and consider how someone who held that opposing position might do so because he or she holds different virtues or values.

PEERS RESPONSE:

The article by Abby Phillip, "Pediatrician refuses to treat baby with lesbian parents and there’s nothing illegal about it" raises many ethical questions. One question is, should Doctors be allowed to deny care for people from same-sex marriages or members of the LGBTQ+? I think as a Doctor you are in the career to help and heal people. That is your main concern, not if they are gay, trans, believe in religion or not. Additionally, this baby is innocent. That baby doesn't know anything wrong with the world and the Doctor denied them healthcare. In the text, deontology is described as the science or study of duty or obligation (Thames, 2018, Chapter 4) Some could argue that Doctor Roi was right for exercising her religious freedom. Doctor Roi should be able to choose who she can give care to. If she only wants to treat men, she should be able to do that. Others could argue she's wrong because her duty as a Doctor is to care for and help people. Doctor Roi agreed to help this couple therefore should be held responsible for upholding her obligation as a healthcare professional. Another ethical issue is the doctor discriminated against a same-sex couple. How do we have an Anti-Discrimination Act but it doesn't cover healthcare?

-Linda

References:

Thames, B. (2018). How Should One Live: An Introduction to Ethics and Moral Reasoning (3rd edition). Pearson. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu