A recent decision by the BC Human Rights Council ruled that Dr. Gerald Korn, an ob/gyn practicing in the province for several decades, contravened the human rights of a lesbian couple to whom he denied access to artificial insemination based on their sexual orientation.
His claim was that by providing the service he was opening himself up to risks to his practice, of an efficient/economic nature. Luckily the BC Human Rights Council ruled against him, and this ruling was in essence backed by the BC Supreme Court. This kind of discrimination is clearly in contravention of the Canadian Federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act (esp. section 2e), as well as common sense. It brings up interesting issues surrounding the role of medical practitioners in society, and what rights they have to deny services on moral/ethical/financial grounds. In my opinion, there is very little room for a doctor's personal moral/ethical beliefs in diagnosing or treating patients, especially as they relate to areas protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act.A recent California case has mirrored the Canadian case. In it, a lesbian couple has claimed that they were discriminated against by a clinic which refused to treat them because of their sexual orientation. The clinic however has blamed communication problems and denies that the couple's sexuality was at issue, instead stating that the treatment was denied because the prospective patient was single. This case is drawing interest from conservative religious and gay activist groups, many of whom have been granted an audience before the court. Pharmacists in the US have been increasingly granted the right to refuse to fill certain prescriptions based on moral grounds (manifesting as denials to provide contraceptives - and, sometimes illegally, to even transfer prescriptions to another pharmacist), which has combined with the lack of acceptance of the morning after pill (which is often not kept in stock at certain chemists) to add up to a barrier to choice of crisis proportions. However, discriminating against services or treatments is far different from discriminating against people.
In both of these instances, the morals of the doctor were pitted against the rights of the patients to receive care. This is a sticky human rights issue pitting freedom of religion against freedom from discrimination and issues of universal access to health care (at least in Canada, where lip service is generally backed up - despite notable inequalities in access to reproductive services experienced in rural, eastern, and aboriginal communities). While "No one can force me to carry a child" has a long tradition of acceptence, "No one can keep me from having a child" deserves just as much sway.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uPCeGFywVVNf_pOJKhp4Ch4h0a5dZw4F9ifckYeHxRxsNl_6_MZFefX1CtSsO3of4Qh4KAg1LRynWyTlqKCQ-UiAbcLrMeSgySSYnS2ziHcu0KJs3-CUDxLK2hxEW3RJryTMqoXktM5AOiFixYxvMW=s0-d)
