Evan Minton is a 35-year-old transgender man who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a medical condition resulting from the feeling of incongruence between one’s gender identity and one’s sex assigned at birth. As a result, he was scheduled to receive a hysterectomy to treat his condition at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a hospital in the religious Dignity Health chain. Mr. Minton’s surgeon was someone who regularly performed hysterectomies and even had one scheduled immediately following Mr. Minton’s scheduled procedure. Two days prior to his operation, a nurse called to discuss the final details of the surgery and during the conversation, Milton mentioned that he is transgender. The next day, the surgeon was told that he couldn’t perform the surgery, and a representative from the hospital called to cancel the procedure.
In 2019, the California Court of Appeal decided that Minton could pursue a claim for discrimination based on the hospital’s cancellation of his surgery. They also ruled that Dignity Health doesn’t have a constitutional right to violate California's nondiscrimination law. Eventually, the case made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, they declined to hear the case.
This is a case where both sides can make extremely interesting and valid arguments. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on similar cases regarding LQBTQ rights in the past. In Fulton v. Philadelphia, the city of Philadelphia refused to contract with Catholic Social Services because they wouldn’t allow children to be placed in homes of same-sex couples for religious reasons. Eventually, the court would rule that the city's actions violated CCS's right to free exercise of religion and that the anti-discrimination law that Philadelphia had in place wasn’t neutral and therefore, couldn’t be used to defend their actions. On the other hand, in Employment Division v. Smith, the court held that an individual's religious beliefs shouldn’t excuse them from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the government is free to regulate. Additionally, there are cases like Bostock v. Clayton County which prohibited employment discrimination against any individual because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Taking these decisions into consideration and comparing them to my own understanding of Minton v. Dignity Health, it is my belief that the hospital was wrong to prevent Minton from receiving that surgery. The California Unruh Civil Rights Act is a clear and neutral law that ensures that all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are free and equal and no matter what they are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind. The hospital’s refusal of these rights to Minton was a clear violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Given the previous ruling of Employment Division v. Smith Dignity Health should not be permitted to act on and promote discrimination based on gender identity just because of their religious beliefs. Unlike the ruling in Fulton v. Philadelphia, I believe this California law to be completely neutral and therefore, completely enforceable. All individuals should be able to receive any necessary medical treatment regardless of any other factor. When it comes to health, discrimination of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated. Undertaking this case wouldn’t have provided any additional burden on the hospital, especially since the surgeon was willing to perform the surgery and was prevented from doing so. Allowing the hospital to discriminate in this case could lead to the presence of a slippery slope and push the limits of what forms of discrimination might be accepted in the future. In order to prevent this from happening, we must recognize that Dignity Health’s actions in this were incorrect and a clear violation of Mr. Minton’s rights. Thus, this is a case in which I would say it is ok to limit one’s free exercise of religion.
7 comments:
I think this is an extremely interesting case in regard to the rights of the patient and the hospital, and I certainly see both sides of this. At this moment, the surgery is not a life or death situation, meaning if this were a life-saving surgery that the hospital refused to perform, than the hospital would be going against the oath to provide such care. The hospital is a religious and private company that can make their own decisions in accordance to their regulations, objectives, and religious values. The patient has the right to go to another hospital and receive this surgery else where, because the private company has the jurisdiction to operate how they wish. However, this is a basic and common surgery that the hospital regularly performs, and the hospital (despite it being private) still operates within the borders of the state and must follow the state's anti-discrimination laws. Just because the hospital may not be financially tied to the government because it operates privately, this by no means grants the hospital an exemption from complying with state laws, especially when the business is in health care.
I see the sides of the patient and the sides of the hospital, but I think I have to agree with what Lena is saying about the case. Due to the fact that it is a religious and private hospital, and because the surgery is not at the stake of life or death, I can see why the hospital does not want to perform it. With this, I am confused due to the fact that this hospital has performed the surgery before, many times, and this is only now an issue. It seems that the hospital is also being discriminatory.
I agree with Lena that this surgery is not a life saving surgery. Since the hospital is religious and private, I think that they do not have to provide the surgery. However, as stated by Meghan and Lena above, they have performed the surgery before, which makes me question now why all of a sudden providing the surgery is an issue. I do think that the hospital is discriminating against this individual, and that their decision to refuse to perform it is questionable. Even though this is a private hospital, the fact that the surgery has been performed before stuck out to me and convinces me that they should be performing it again.
I think whenever cases involving transgender people or LGTBQ people are brought up it becomes very polarized because there is no constitutional protection for those communities. This means that almost every case is brought to what is more important, the rights of religious people to not do things that violate their religious values or the rights of certain people to not be discriminated against. I think people not being discriminated should come before violating someone's religious values. So in this cases I think the surgery should have to be completed.
I believe that this court case is a very difficult one as both sides have very compelling arguments. In the end I believe I am siding with the hospitals right to deny surgery based on religious purposes. I believe the religious rights of those that work in the hospital should be protected and if they feel it would go against their religious convictions to perform this surgery they should not be forced to. I also see value in the ability the patient has to get the procedure done at another hospital that isn't religious and will go through with the procedure. They also are a private religious hospital and this surgery as Lena mentioned above isn't life or death because if that was the case the hospital would be required to perform a life saving procedure.
I believe that the hospital should not be required to provide the procedure. Although it may seem like the rights of both parties are at stake, there is a way to please both parties that would respect both of their rights. They can always go somewhere else for the surgery, and it just so happened that another hospital did offer to perform the surgery. The hospital must have its religious obligations respected, otherwise you go down the slippery slope of forcing hospitals to act out of line with their religious obligations for example, performing abortions.
I made my stance on the case about how the teacher should have been suspended for not using pronouns, but side with the hospital regarding this case. I understand the argument that this could be considered an emergency surgery, but it is not threatening, especially since the individual was able to get the surgery just days later. It is reasonable that this hospital did not want to break their religious values because this is the physical surgery contributing to transitioning. Unlike the teacher who is just saying words, this is what makes a transgender person medically transgender, and making them compromise their values absolutely is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Post a Comment