Hospital: Breast Surgery "Not Part of God's Plan" for Transgendered Woman
Hastings, who already has had one major sex-change surgery, claims that Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., would not allow her plastic surgeon to operate on a transgender person. "I honestly believe that God has plans for me to have this surgery," Hastings told FOXNews.com. "I felt simply less than equal," she said. "Here I am, a woman. I had the reassignment surgery, and not to allow me this right, I felt violated."
Hastings, who was raised Catholic and says she attends church every Sunday, said the hospital told her that the surgery was not part of God's plan for her. ..."She feels as if she's been treated as if she has no rights," said her attorney, Christopher Dolan.
Hastings completed gender reassignment surgery in fall 2006 to become female at another hospital. Shortly after, she requested the breast augmentation surgery be performed at Seton Medical Center because her surgeon was affiliated with the hospital. The hospital denied her request and an official told her that "God made you a man," according to the complaint. "Hastings said that they would not allow her to receive the services because they felt that she was born a man, so they would not assist her in this procedure that they offer," Dolan said.
Source: Fox News
Unlike with abortion, this is not a case where the hospital can object to the procedure by saying that they shouldn't be forced to commit what they consider to be "murder." The disagreement here is almost unequivocally theological: the hospital won't perform the procedure because they believe it is contrary to God's will. Is this a legitimate basis for a religious exemption to public anti-discrimination laws? Could a hospital legitimately refuse to save a person's life by saying that stopping their death would be against God's will? Could a hospital legitimately refuse to administer pain relievers to a woman in labor by saying that it is against God's will for birth to be pain-free?
Saving a life is obviously not the same as an elective surgery, but I see no basis in the argument for religious exemptions to limit them just to elective surgeries. Even if we assume that such a limitation were there, however, pain medication for labor is arguably elective because some women do choose to go without it. That sounds pretty "elective" to me and there is adequate biblical support for the belief that it's wrong for women in labor to receive anything that would minimize pain.
If the hospital were a purely private institution, it would probably be easier for them to defend exemption claims, but my understanding is that hospitals typically receive more than a little public funding because they are providing an important public service. If they do receive public funds, though, the they are using those funds to discriminate and that is illegal. If they really want full freedom to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, then at the very least they should take steps to remain completely private.
Comments
I agree. If the hospital received government funding, then they have an obligation to treat all citizens equally.
What I’d like to see is Ms. Hastings call god as a witness to offer his personal opinion on his will. If he refuses to enlighten us, then how can anyone say what his will is?
Yeah, the “god’s plan” argument would seem to go against any cosmetic surgery. In fact, I think it would go against any surgery whatsoever. If I get cancer–how is it not part of god’s plan that I have cancer? Isn’t a physian “interfering” with my natural death by opposing the natural cancer?
This reminds me of how theists used to argue against putting people on life support machines. They used to say it was unnatural. Now, they fight to keep people on those same machines, and if you try to remove them, you’re playing god.
How could any Xian argue that stopping any natural process isn’t interfering with god’s plan? If it’s so wrong, why does any Xian go to a doctor for any reason?
What did the hospital or the doctor mean with the term god’s will? Is this hospital affiliated with any particular religion/is the doctor religious?
To me it sounds more like a rethorical statement rather than just another example of those anti-scientific Christians. I tend to think that the doctor may have had health reasons in mind and probably would have said the same to a person who wanted to transplant both ears to another location on his head.
God’s plan (or how I perceive it) has nothing to do with stopping any natural process-it’s how you live within that process! And that includes having a good doctor.
Jeremiah/
In this case, you are talking about a “transplant both ears to another location” surgery that is the third most popular type of plastic surgery, preformed on over 264,000 people in 2004 alone. The refusal to do the surgery was not made by the doctor, it was made by the hospital. The hospital’s own comments about their refusal makes no mention of health concerns, only religious concerns.
There should be a burden of proof. If I hold that any particular thing is Gods will, then the burden of proof is mine when it involves another party.
They must make it a crime to perform sex changes & all hospitals must refuse to maim patients. A boy can not become a girl & vice versa. Let’s end the blind faith surrounding sex change maimings, because sex change maimings are trash.
They must make it a crime to perform sex changes & all hospitals must refuse to maim patients. A boy can not become a girl & vice versa. Let’s end the blind faith surrounding sex change maimings, because sex change maimings are trash.
So ab, do you also hate 0.1 to 1.0% of the population? That is the percentage of people who are born sexually ambiguous in some way.
Jim, I don’t hate them. What I believe in is finding a cure for Gender Dysphoria (GID). Also if it could be predicted that a future baby would engage in homo&lesbian activities or worse yet, would have Gender Dysphoria (GID), then I believe in abortion.
Abortion is justified if a baby will have GID in the future.
“Jim, I don’t hate them. What I believe in is finding a cure for Gender Dysphoria (GID). Also if it could be predicted that a future baby would engage in homo&lesbian activities or worse yet, would have Gender Dysphoria (GID), then I believe in abortion.
Abortion is justified if a baby will have GID in the future. ”
I think this puts you several light-years out of the mainstream, ab, even among conservative Christians. Are there any other diseases that you think should be preemptively treated by abortion?
And if a person is born with only 3 brain cells and no sense of compassion, it is wrong to treat them as a functioning human.
Ab, you are a disgusting idiot, and it would be wrong to tell you otherwise.
>God’s plan (or how I perceive it) has nothing to do with stopping any natural process-it’s how you live within that process! And that includes having a good doctor.
What does this mean? (Medical) Doctors are, by practice, interfering with natural processes. A person who believes nature and natural processes are god’s plan wouldn’t believe in using doctors…?
‘Is this hospital affiliated with any particular religion”
I live near Seton. It was named for a Catholic saint, the founder of its parent organization, the Daughters of Charity. It is not surprising that a Catholic institution would do this, although it is ironic that it’s just outside a city which legally protects the transgendered from discrimination, and covers sex-reassignment surgery for its employees.
Tracieh: this “idea” of God’s will/plan is difficult enough for Christians who are better read on the subject than I am. There are various definitions of will and plan as well which would take to much time to write down.
Part of the natural process of human beings is thinking how better to use natural things. An infection (natural) in my foot sometime ago was treated by powerful anti-biotics (also natural). Nature is also natural so we humans build houses and make clothes (also natural).
I don’t see any conflict between good medicine and a natural process. Of course there are end life issues and then we have those famous arguments of whom is playing god!
So, you define man-made and synthetic as “natural”? You mention clothes–is polyester “natural”? You mention houses–is insulation “natural”? Are synthesized medicines “natural”? There are many definitions of “natural”, one of which is “not man-made.” But you appear to really be stretching it. Can I ask where you draw the line that becomes “unnatural”?
Is wearing clothing “natural”? Is wearing makeup “natural”? Hair color? Fertility treatments? cars? potato chips (read the bag–there’s crap in there you can’t even pronounced that is totally synthesized in labs as preservative)? GMOs? Oral sex? computers?
What is your definition of natural–seriously? Do you live a completely natural life? Or do you incorporate unnatural things into your life? If you do–then you have no room to call anyone else’s lifestyle “not in accordance with god’s plan/will” on the grounds that it’s “unnatural”–unless you’re willing to accept that same criticism in your own life.
Just to also add, you’re accessing this site with a computer, that is mainly plastic components–nothing “natural” there by ANY stretch. I can’t think of anything more counter to nature than plastics.
Idiots. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality outside of religious reasons.
And for the natural argument, that’s
really subjective isn’t it?
And do you see it as maiming a girl when she undergoes a sex change operation?
And why is the world a better place without homosexuality or sex change operations?
“I believe that transexuality is worse than homosexuality,which is why I want to make it a crime to perform sex change maimings. I also believe that if it could be predicited in the future that an unborn baby would be a homo, lesbian or have GID, then abortion is justified. I see something wrong with men having sex with men & women having sex with women. It’s either straight missionary activity (penis entering woman’s vagina) or no sex. ”
A long string of wild assertions and personal opinions, trying to masquerade as an argument against the rights of individuals to change their own private property (ie. their bodies).
You may not personally agree with someone wanting to be white rather than black, or black rather than white, but would it be right to restrict other’s rights to it if they paid the money? All I can see there is “it is wrong”. If you want it to be considered an opinion, then you have no right to restrict other people’s rights. If you want it to be an argument, then support your currently baseless assertion.
“Tracieh: this “idea” of God’s will/plan is difficult enough for Christians who are better read on the subject than I am. There are various definitions of will and plan as well which would take to much time to write down.”
And whatever god’s will is is morally right? This is no different than saying that whatever the leader of a country does is moral. Lowering morality to simply the arbitry desires of a being, whether it is all powerful or not, is disgusting.
“Part if the natural process of human beings is thinking how better to use natural things. An infection (natural) in my foot sometime ago was treated by powerful anti-biotics (also natural). Nature is also natural so we humans build houses and make clothes (also natural).”
Yes, X is “natural”, and Y is not “natural”. As a metaphysical naturalist, I don’t believe anything that a human can do or conceive is not natural.
But back to the question, if we say that healing someone of cancer is “natural”, and that having a doctor curing it is right, then why not the same with sex changes? Or are you simply going to baselessly assert that it is “against god’s will”. You don’t agree with someones personal choices about their own body, so you say that it is the property of some intergalactic autocrat?
“I don’t see any conflict between good medicine and a natural process. Of course there are end life issues and then we have those famous arguments of whom is playing god!”
As others have said, properly define “natural process”. It seems like you are asserting that X is natural, and also claiming that Y is not natural, and then saying that what is not “natural” is morally wrong. I see no reason not to believe this does not fall under the special pleading fallacy.
Also, I don’t get “playing god”. If something is immoral, then it will be immoral whether it is comitted by a god or a human. If we assert that “only god has the power to end lives”, this is an intrusion of the individual’s right ot end their own life. Why not claim “only god has the power to decide who you vote for”, a statement which has exactly the same amount of validity.
This hospital has no more reason to believe that vaccinations are part of God’s plan than it does that a sex change is.
Ab said:
“Also if it could be predicted that a future baby would engage in homo&lesbian activities or worse yet, would have Gender Dysphoria (GID), then I believe in abortion.
Abortion is justified if a baby will have GID in the future.”
Yikes. This sounds disturbingly similar to the rantings of Dr. Laura.
Or Adolph Hitler.
There are a number of atheists who, like me, consider god belief to be a mental disorder. The fact that god believers are incapable of using logic tends to support that assertion. And because that illness has a negative effect on others, I strongly believe that should we ever find a cure, it should be forced upon them. We have the right to defend ourselves after all.
“There are a number of atheists who, like me, consider god belief to be a mental disorder. The fact that god believers are incapable of using logic tends to support that assertion. And because that illness has a negative effect on others, I strongly believe that should we ever find a cure, it should be forced upon them. We have the right to defend ourselves after all.”
This post was right underneath one conatining the word Adolph Hitler, and it was very appropriate.
The day people with different belief systems from the state and/or majority are taken off and “cured” is the day another Nazi germany emerges. Please show a little respect for other people’s freedom of the mind.
Before it was deleted there was a post by some fellow who claimed he wasn’t religious but thought its a good idea to abort babies before they are homosexual or transsexual. Of course, he never said why it was justified leading me to think he was merely some religious sort masquerading as someone nonreligious. How exactly are you supposed to be able to tell whether or not a baby will be homosexual or transsexual? Did someone invent a device that can see ahead into the future?
Got weirdness, what was written is that IF it could be predicted that an unborn baby would be a homo, lesbian or would have Gender Dysphoria (GID), then abortion is justified. This poster is not religious & thus did not masquerade as a non-religious person. I am not a Christian & I find it rude that you think that I base it on religous reasons when I have specifically said that I do not. There are people who are not religious such as I but who agree with religous people on some points.