The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Covington & Burling LLP teamed up and filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health on Minton’s behalf to defend the idea that Evan Minton should not be denied medical care because he is transgender. In the lawsuit, Minton claimed that the actions of Dignity Health violated the California Unruh Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender, gender identity, and gender expression in all businesses. In their motion, Dignity Health argued that sterilization operations are not provided at their Catholic hospitals because it went against their ideals detailed in the Catholic Church’s Ethical and Religious Directives. For Dignity Health, they argued that this code of conduct at their Catholic hospitals was supported by the first amendment rights.
In this case, we are dealing with the issue of whether or not a company has a right to refuse services if their religious beliefs don’t align with the client’s identity. The case also tackles the issue of whether the courts can force someone to provide a service even if it is against their religion. In my opinion, it is within Mercy San Juan Medical Center’s 1st amendment rights to withhold medical care because they are a private institution and this procedure does violate their religious beliefs, but should they be allowed to do so? The actions of Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Dignity Health were a blatant display of transphobia because Minton was denied care solely because of his gender identity and expression. While it is within their first amendment rights to not treat Evan Minton, I think this raises an important question of whether or not hospitals (public or private) should be able to deny healthcare to anyone for any personal reason. For health care workers, treating patients to the best of their ability is their main purpose and goal. Hospitals are meant to treat people regardless of their identities or whether their workers agree with the identities of their patients. A hospital should not be able to reject someone’s medical care request based on their identity which is the main goal of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Sure, Minton was able to receive his hysterectomy at a different hospital, but what about those who don’t have the means to go somewhere else? The impact of the decision that the court makes will be huge and the effects could be potentially dangerous. I think this case will create a slippery slope if the courts decide to let Dignity Health allow their Catholic hospitals to deny transgender people healthcare. No one deserves to be turned away when they are seeking medical help. Not only would trans people not be able to receive medical care at this hospital even if they need it, but other hospitals could follow suit and allow their personal beliefs to obstruct the main goal of being a healthcare provider.
12 comments:
I agree that transgender individuals have just as much a right to healthcare as everybody else, and, while I can see the argument for the hospital being within their first amendment rights to deny health care based on their religion, I believe that this decision threatens to violate social order and the health and safety of citizens. Therefore, I think performing surgery regardless of identity takes more precedence in this situation than protecting the hospital's right to freedom of religion. Though, legally, a case could be made to protect the hospital's decisions, I think the violation of civil rights, particularly in a hospital when it comes to the health of an individual, should be prioritized above anything else. In agreement with Hallie, I think it is a dangerous act to refuse ANYONE medical services, as this argument could be used for any individual - for example, a criminal. Each individual has a right to health care regardless of identity, and I believe that the court should provide that precedent so that refusal of medical services for transgender individuals cannot occur again.
While I understand the hospital’s argument of using the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression as reasoning for their denial of Evan Minton’s hysterectomy, I could not help but feel like it was an easy way out. They cited the Catholic Church’s Ethical and Religious Directives as their justification, but in the directives one of the first things that is cited how Jesus “touched people at the deepest level of their existence; he sought their physical, mental, and spiritual healing (Jn 6:35, 11:25-27). He “came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10).” I feel as if the denial of Evan Minton’s hysterectomy and the general transphobia involved in this case goes against California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and the foundational message Jesus attempted to spread.
I agree with you that this will create a slippery slope if the court allows hospitals to start determining who they will or will not treat. While I do believe that refusing to perform the surgery is within the hospitals First Amendment rights, I believe the purpose of a hospital to treat everyone regardless of their identity comes above that. If the court allows Dignity Health to refuse treatment to this individual, then what is to stop a hospital from treating someone based on their sexual orientation or race. This is why in this case I think they should rule in favor of Evan Minton.
I agree that there does exist a slippery slope in this case whether or not it is considered constitutional for the hospital to dense Evan Minton surgery just because the Catholic beliefs of the church do not support the LGBTQ+ community. I would argue that it is unconstitutional for the Church to deny the right to provide medical help to an individual just because of one's gender identification. Because the state has a law stating that one cannot discriminate against an individual due to their gender identification is what makes this denial of service unconstitutional, especially if Mr. Minton already had his appointment schedule and it was cancelled due to him explaining that he was transgender. It would be a whole different case if this state law regarding gender discrimination did not exist. This can be compared to the other case we looked at regarding the adoption agency not allowing same sex couples to adopt. This would also be considered unconstitutional and a discrimination sole due to ones gender identification.
I agree with the comments posted by Sofia and Julia. I think the denial of the surgery sets a dangerous precedent, as Sofia mentioned. It may allow other hospitals to deny service to other individuals for "religious beliefs," which sets off a tangent slippery slope; a hospital could refuse service to individuals for moral reasons, claiming they are synonymous to religious faith.
I agree with what everyone is stating, in that this is a very slippery slope and that denying someone the right to receive medical attention simply based on the religious standings of the hospital and patient is wrong, as hospitals are supposed to be a place one goes to receive help. However, this being said, private hospitals are allowed to turn down patients, and while this is a terrible thing to do, I do see the other side of the arguement, even if I do not agree with it
I think the most important part of looking at cases like these is being able to understand both sides of the argument. I do agree with the comments above about how rejecting someone from receiving a certain surgery or treatment can soon become more personal than religiously based. Private or even public hospitals who have a bias towards certain treatments could easily form an argument that the reason they do not want to perform a certain surgery is because it is against what they believe in. I think this is the main reason as to why I agree with the point that hospitals should be responsible for treating every patient whether the hospital is private or not. But looking at the opposite point of view, I do understand how a procedure like this could be very difficult for a private hospital to handle. Doing something that strongly goes against your beliefs is never easy to do and it is hard to say whether these people definitely should or should not be forced to complete the surgery.
I do agree with the hospital's stance that because they are a private institution they are allowed to make their own rules and deny people service. Although morally I think this is wrong, I think a lot of moral issues stem from private businesses denying services to people of different backgrounds. For example, just as in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case a couple was denied service, I believe this argument made here is similar and the hospital should ultimately be allowed to say this.
One thing that stood out to me when reading this was that Dignity Health Services claimed that their Catholic hospitals did not provide sterilization services. However if the hospital doesn't than the only reason they would provide hysterectomies would be for cancer and given that Evan was able to schedule a surgery in the first place I find it hard to believe that they don't offer sterilization services. In general I agree with the above comments that allowing this to happen is a slippery slope, because what happens when it isn't a gender affirming surgery, will the doctors still refuse to operate on a patient for their sexual or gender identity?
I think you have to look at the entire case before making a decision. I do think it is wrong the a hospital can deny a patient to receive medical attention due to the fact that their religious beliefs don't align with the persons sexual identity. Even though I think it is wrong I do agree with Hallie that it is in Mercy San Juan Medical Center's First Amendment rights to withhold medical care because they are a private institution and the procedure violates their religious beliefs. Even though this case creates a slippery slope In my opinion hospitals private or not should have to treat every patient no matter what because it is their job to treat people in need of medical help.
I agree that transgender individuals have the right to receive healthcare and any sort of surgical procedure at any hospital regardless of it being public, private or religious hospitals. Hospitals are designed to seek any one that walks in through their doors regardless of their gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, religion or even offensive/hateful tattoos. I personally find it hard to see the hospital's point of view and argument because it is veiled behind their transphobia and blatant discrimination. If the final ruling in this case would have said that Mercy San Juan Medical Center's has the right to deny surgeries based upon their First Amendment right it would have been a slippery slope in allowing other hospitals and private business into show casing their own discrimination. Would that mean that a hospital would not save the life of someone that is transgender and have them transferred to a different hospital because they do not agree with their gender identity? I agree with the Court of Appeals in finding that it is illegal discrimination for a hospital to deny medical care to someone because they are transgender.
I agree with the idea that transgenders should have the right to their health care, including any sort of surgery or procedure they wish to receive. I do not think that the hospital should be able to deny care to a patient because of their gender identity and or sexual orientation, for the same reason that judges in previous cases that we read in class said that it acts as a public good, similar to firefighters or police officers. The work that the hospital staff needs to do for patients does not need to be entangled with the patients religious beliefs. Regardless of what their beliefs are, doctors are required to treat patients. This makes me think of situations in which criminals who have done terrible things are brought to a hospital injured. The doctors took an oath and are required to treat them despite what they have done. This would create a slippery slope for doctors when determining where to draw the line for refusal of treatment.
Post a Comment