Case Study: Pediatrician's Refusal to Treat LGBTQ Parents' Child

This case study analyzes a situation where a pediatrician refused to treat a baby whose parents were a same-sex couple, sparking ethical and legal debate. The report examines the discriminatory actions of the doctor, highlighting the couple's negative experience and the lack of direct communication. The discussion delves into the problems arising from the refusal, including the couple's feelings of disrespect and the doctor's violation of ethical responsibilities. The study explores legal rights, the importance of communication, and the impact of such incidents on the LGBTQ+ community. It also provides recommendations for handling similar situations with greater sensitivity and transparency, emphasizing the need for clear communication and patient advocacy. The conclusion reiterates the ethical failings of the doctor's actions, while acknowledging the absence of legal violations, and stresses the need for respect and understanding in healthcare settings.

Case Study

Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................3
Description..............................................................................................................................................3
Discussion...............................................................................................................................................3
Recommendation.....................................................................................................................................6
CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
The case is about apediatrician who refused totake a baby as her patient, the reason was
the parents of the baby was of same sex and Dr. Roirefused to take that case on basis of that. The
report will talk about the problem in the case and how it can be solved from my perception. The
report will talk about the law and policy which support my views. The complication of case and
how it can be made easier will be discussed thoroughly and all the aspect of the case will be
taken into consideration to get a better clarity (Subhrajit, 2014). The report will talk about the
discrimination that couple faced because of the belief of the old pediatrician and what need to be
dine for the same.
Description
A married couple of same sex was not happy after their paediatrician refused to take their
case because of her belief. Bay was the name of the daughter and Jami and Krista were the
parents. Couple took their infant daughter to Dr.Roiwhom they have chosen. But when they went
to see the doctor her colleague was waiting for them. Obviously they were bit confused, it was
not long when they came to know out about the reason why Dr.Roi is not taking their case. The
parents were very disappointed with the act and were ready to take down doctor legally for her
act of discrimination.
Discussion
From the case study it can be told that the couple was furious because of the step taken by
the doctor, the doctor has her own reason and gave the statement also stating that she care for her
every patient. The doctor also wrote an apology letter to the couple for the same. First thing
which need to be discussed are problems in the case (Lee and Ostergard Jr, 2017). The case
highlightsdiscrimination to LGBTQ society and the couple felt disrespected as the doctor was
not even upfront and sender her colleague to tell her decision. The couple felt embarrassing and
humiliated because of the act by the doctor and took their experience to Facebook so that people
can hear them out and such kind of discrimination is not promoted again in the coming future.
The couple got support from their family and friends and even social media gave them support in
this sensitive case. The doctor immediately apologised for her behaviour but told clearly that she
will not change her mind as it was against her personal belief. The doctor clearly told if she will

take the case she will be not able to maintain doctor patient relationship. The doctor also talk
about she is very open and respect their equation and made it clear that she is not judging the
situation. The couple felt bad as they were already into something sensitive and they thought that
they don’t have to face such type of discrimination at least from a well educated doctor. Though
they were ready for all the challenges from the society which can arise from their judgement but
this was something which they also didn’t expect (Kum, 2017). Social acceptance is the biggest
insecurity for the couple and that was triggered again, the LGBTQ society ensures that the doctor
they have selected is gay friendly so that the mental damage which can be caused to them
because of the doctor refusal on basis of their sex orientation can be stopped. The couple tried to
ignore it and they ignored it for a month or two but it was not easy to digest and something need
to come and it did. They posted the incident on Facebook and showed their anger and it was
justifiable as the couple was not able to get over the refusal they got because of their community.
The case was a very sensitive one and it need to be handled very carefully. LGBTQ
society is fighting for their acceptance in society and they need each and every type of
motivation from the society so that they are recognised like each one of us. Here the doctor was
not willing to take the case and she had all the right to refuse any case if they are incompatible
with "personal, religious or moral beliefs (Higa and et. al., 2014). It makes it legal to refuse the
case but it is ethically incorrect as it is not helping the cause of the society. If Dr.Roi didn’t
wanted that case she should have personally met the couple, told them about her perception and
why she can’t take that case. If she would have communicated that she don’t judge them but she
is doing it because of her personal belief it may made the situation less embarrassing for the
couple. In fact chances are their couple could have appreciated the honesty coming from the
doctor and may have asked her to recommend another doctor then. But just because Dr.Roi took
the option of running away from the situation and sending her colleague to attend the session
with the couple and daughter has left the couple devastated and angry, and the reason is more
obvious. Such type of sensitive topic need to be handling with the care and the communication
become more important so that there is no noise between the encoding and decoding of the
message (Klein and Nakhai, 2016). The reason it is said that because it may lead to gap and that
gap may arise conflict and it can become much worse in a very short interval of time. So it was
very important in the part of the doctor to have a proper communication and coordination with
the couple so that there is no gap and the positive relationship can be maintained even if she is

not taking the case of their daughter. The apology note sent to the couple by the doctor stated
that “After much prayer following your prenatal (visit), I felt that I would not be able to develop
the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients.” The parents took
that note negatively as they again thought that the reason for the refusal was their community and
they found it as a judgement passed to them. It was very crucial that need to be communicated
properly to them.The doctor does not mentioned the proper reason behind stepping down from
the case but it was interpreted that the reason was religious and personal belief it was against her
prayers. Roi and all the legal right to step back from the case and that’s what she did, her action
was not illegal and she will be not being legally accountable for the same. But that case had
bought sense of insecurity in LGBTQ society and if doctor Roi would have been more careful
and vocal to the situation the damage would have been reduced and ethics would have been
followed. It is very important to treat all the community with respect and all the community
deserve their dues and that was needed to be done in the case (Domínguez and Peña, 2015).
According to me people who discriminate on basis of community deserve punishment.
Yes it is possible that religious beliefs need to be respected and i am not neglecting it. But in the
case study mentioned here the doctor was already aware about the state and the equation. She
shouldn’t have taken the case from the starting and if she has taken it she had a responsibility of
handling it with respect. Another thing which was wrong from the doctor side was not meeting
the couple personally and sending her colleague to attend the session and giving them that
information through her colleague. According to me doctor deserved to be punished because of
the damage she did to the couple mentally. The amount of security which was arises because of
that immature decision and not to forget the embarrassment. Having said that there is no law
which oppose the doctor. She was well within her right to refuse the case as it was against her
religious right so legally speaking she was legally correct.
These types of issues really need to be tackled properly as it can bring sense of insecurity
to a community which need to be accepted by the public. Proper communication is a essence of
this type of situation. If not communicated properly it may bring frustration, tension and lot of
negativity to the person (Renn, 2017). Roi’s willingness to inflict collateral damage to a infant so
that she can express her anti-gay animusmakes her a immoral person and a monster too, and not
to forget a terrible doctor. And her refusal to treat a lesbian couple’s child has already earned her

a backlash and hatredfrom the community. (Ire, by the way, is the sole remedy here: Under state
and federal law, Roi’s actions were perfectly legal.) Even those conservatives who generally
support legalized discrimination against LGBTQ people seemed shocked by Roi’s decision.
Who, after all, could have enough hate in their hearts to disadvantage a child just because of her
parents’ identity? Doctors are the pillars of the society, they should know to operate each and
everyone irrespective of caste, religion, sex or any other thing. It is a must that a doctor need to
be unbiased and should only aim to save people around them if they have it within their
knowledge. But the case is on contrary of that as a doctor refused the case just because she want
to follow her anti gay belief (Cyrus, 2017).
These things can impact the mind-set of the children who will start thinking from the
very beginning that there is something wrong with her parents. They will start disrespecting the
parents on basis of that. Not only are that chances that it can bring a feeling of being inferior in
children’s also. They will stop connecting with society as they will start feeling inferior and will
think society will never accept them (Costa and Tasker, 2018). These thoughts which are there
from very beginning may bring sense of depression and sadness on the child also. So it is
required for the public interest that they should not get such type of incident. They need to feel
like they are accepted so that positive mind-setfrom very outset is exercised
The federal Affordable Care Act has bought into picture some patient protections that
keep insurers from discriminating against anyone for health status. The law also bars health
insurance companies from discriminating against patients based on their community, sexual
orientation or gender identity (Acevedo-Palolakovich and et. al., 2013). Insurers cannot drop a
patient for having HIV or cap their lifetime medical costs to wriggle out of covering expensive
anti-retroviral medications.
Recommendation
The case should have been handled maturely from doctor side. Doctor should inform in
prior about what are the exception which they will not operate and why. Doctor need to be more
transparent and communication between the two people should loud and clear. The only reason
is to avoid misunderstanding and avoid damages because of that. Patient need to be careful by
picking a doctor and should mention each and everything to them so that doctor can take their

decision at start only. Government should bring rules and policies in interest of LGBTQ society
so that they can have a sense of security.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the couple faced discrimination and was frustrated by the actions of
the doctor. On the other handthe doctor was not in a legal fault but ethically she was wrong as
she didn’t met them personally while rejecting the case. But it was needed that the doctor should
have been more responsible and transparent to the couple. The couple deserved proper
communication from Dr.Roi which they didn’t get properly. So from the case study it can be told
that the issue which was discussed was of sensible nature and need to be solved carefully. The
report talks about the rights of LGBTQ society and why they need to be revised and how it will
bring peace and security amongst them.

REFERENCES
Books and Journal
Subhrajit, C., 2014. Problems faced by LGBT people in the mainstream society: Some
recommendations. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies. 1(5).
pp.317-331.
Lee, C. and Ostergard Jr, R. L., 2017. Measuring discrimination against LGBTQ people: A
cross-national analysis. Human Rights Quarterly. 39(1). pp.37-72.
Kum, S., 2017. Gay, gray, black, and blue: An examination of some of the challenges faced by
older LGBTQ people of color. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. 21(3). pp.228-239.
Higa, D. and et. al., 2014. Negative and positive factors associated with the well-being of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Youth &
Society. 46(5). pp.663-687.
Klein, E. W. and Nakhai, M., 2016. Caring for LGBTQ patients: methods for improving
physician cultural competence. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine. 51(4).
pp.315-324.
Domínguez, D. G. and Peña, E., 2015. LGBTQ relationally based positive psychology: An
inclusive and systemic framework. Psychological Services. 12(2). p.177.
Renn, K., 2017. LGBTQ students on campus: Issues and opportunities for higher education
leaders. Higher Education Today.
Cyrus, K., 2017. Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress
theory to LGBTQ people of color. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. 21(3). pp.194-202.
Costa, P. A. and Tasker, F., 2018. “We wanted a forever family”: Altruistic, individualistic, and
motivated reasoning motivations for adoption among LGBTQ individuals. Journal of Family
Issues. 39(18). pp.4156-4178.
Acevedo-Palolakovich, I. D. and et. al., 2013. Service accessibility for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and questioning youth. Youth & Society. 45(1). pp.75-97.