Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian doctor reinstated after same-sex adoption row

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. We seem to be losing the war against the religious at the moment.

    Maybe time to fall back, regroup and counter-attack

    If it’s like this now with a gay friendly govt in power what will it be like under the tories – the tories who have been going round telling the religiously afflicted that there will be more faith schools under them?

  2. Not at all TallDave.
    Dr Matthews will not be allowed to vote on the panel at all,
    she was hoping to consider only applications from heterosexual couples applying to adopt but her employer recognised that it was discriminatory to allow her to do this.

  3. “Dr Matthews will not be allowed to vote on the panel at all”

    This was the compromise that Dr Matthews asked for and that her employer initially refused.

  4. Gino Meriano 27 Jul 2009, 3:37pm

    What a cop out, come on act on the law and keep her off the panel – what is wrong here ?????

    Do we have to fight harder now even with the Equality Act – maybe its time we take to the streets and fight this battle for equality like the old days

  5. Not quite IAIN, Dr Matthews wanted to continue to vote on all other applications but absent herself only when same sex couples applications were being considered & voted on, now she will not be allowed to vote on the panel at all.

  6. To me, this is like the canteen cook who wanted an exemption from cooking pork sausages because of his religious beliefs.

    If somebody can’t do the core job required because of their beliefs, there should be no exemptions, no costly workarounds… they should feel perfectly free to carry out all of the requirements of their religion in the comfort of their own home.

    Dr Matthews doesn’t feel she can do the required job, so it’s simple… she should resign and find a job she feels she *can* do.

    A lot of vegetarians seem to feel strongly about killing animals, but I’ve never heard of any one of them asking for or receiving desk duties at a butcher’s shop, in accordance with their beliefs.

  7. Well said, tsuchan. That really is the nub of the matter. If she cannot do the job (as in the job description) along with her colleagues she should be sacked.

  8. @Paul
    Corrected,
    Thank you

  9. She doesn’t feel that placing children with LGB people is the best place, partly as a christian. So her superstitious religious prejudice informs her work which is pretty unprofessional. Why should someone elses fantasy world effect the lives of children and prospective parents. She has also had her opportunity to quote spurious research in the telegraph which takes every opportunity to print anything denigrating or which lobbies against the rights of gay men and lesbians. I think they did the right thing by taking away her voting rights across the board.

  10. Isn’t this continued involvement a comprimise? Doesn’it mean that a compromise position has been accommodated owing to her wish to discriminate. Surely, her wish to discriminate is contrary to the GMC (General Medical Council) code of ethics. Does any one else feel that she ought to be reported to the GMC in the form of a complaint?

  11. Daniel Wilkes 28 Jul 2009, 1:43am

    This seems to be a reasonable compromise to me- provided she doesn’t treat same-sex couples differently when she examines them. Her job was really only supposed to be to offer her opinion as to the health of the applicants- I don’t really understand why she even had a vote in the first place.

    The only grounds for a complaint to the GMC would be if there were a specific example of her allowing her beliefs to interfere with her practice. If, for example, the committee noted that she kept saying that same-sex couples weren’t healthy enough (and the opinion of another doctor often disagreed) or if one of the applicants complained that she kept asking the same questions about their sex life as if to make a point or as if to suggest that the applicant’s answers were false, or said something to the applicant that expressed her disdain for their “conduct” or “lifestyle choice”.

    I don’t like the woman, or the way she handled this, and I think she should probably have done the decent thing and resigned- but she is entitled to her beliefs- just not to ram them down everyone else’s throats.

  12. Paul (2, 5):

    Agreed. You have a handle on this one, and I appreciated your informative comments on the previous thread. Good man.

  13. too many religious bigots think they should be above the laws and immune to criticism

  14. Another Christain Bigot trying to avoid doing her work

  15. tsuchan (and others): “Dr Matthews doesn’t feel she can do the required job, so it’s simple… she should resign and find a job she feels she *can* do.”

    Who said she can’t do the job? She just said she has an opinion that appears to conflict with other people on that committee.
    That’s not being able to do the job, it’s not being allowed to do the job.

    I know I’m playing Devil’s advocate on here as usual, but I do personally feel the woman had a genuine point, above and beyond her Christian beliefs. She abstained from making a decision partly on those grounds, and for that reason I fully support her. It’s not a cop-out, it’s a fair and understanding compromise.

    It seems everyone on here wants equality and fair treatment, but they are totally unwilling to accept anyone else making even the slightest deviation from their own personal directives. The hypocrisy is extraordinary.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all