Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays - page 2

@: :stone... Read More

  1. by   begalli
    Quote from Butterfly03
    This is so crazy. What is this world coming to.
    It's "Christian Conservatism" aka the Bush Administration and a highly Republican government.




    I better add that I'm not saying ALL Christians.




    .
  2. by   CHATSDALE
    everything dumb, stupid cannot be laid at bush's doorstep..get real he is not a member of the michigan legislature

    i don't know exactly what is in the michigan law...maybe they just have their brains frozen after a particular harsh winter
    however this opens the door to even odder discrimination...what about treating left handed people
    HOWEVER...a catholic based hospital should not be required to have abortions done in their facility...a jewish hospital shouldnot be required to serve ham and porkchops..
    some things should be left to common sense...
    if you lost a child to drug use you may not be the best person to care for someone you know is a dealer or user...but you should turn care over to a competent healthcare giver
    and as has been noted an emergency room does not have the time to determine what is acceptable and what is not
  3. by   Ted
    everything dumb, stupid cannot be laid at bush's doorstep..get real he is not a member of the michigan legislature
    Maybe not directly. BUT. . . his ideologies and policies do set the tone! BIG TIME!

    This is a dark time in our history.

    Hope this does not pass in Michigan. As someone mentioned, it is wrong on many levels.

    :stone
    Last edit by Ted on Mar 29, '05
  4. by   mysticalwaters1
    Quote from efiebke
    Maybe not directly. BUT. . . his ideologies and policies do set the tone! BIG TIME!

    This is a dark time in our history.

    Hope this does not pass in Michigan. As someone mentioned, it is wrong on many levels.

    :stone
    You know I'm getting that vibe too. Just i feel there are no questions about things anymore and looking for or demanding "morally right" when the right is against being a certain sector and i am not sure this right is right and if you don't agree with that right you are condemed.

    Yes a certain mindset is going on. I'm finding highschoolers seem to be stating certain religious values yet also talking about their sex exploits. What I'm getting is to be morally correct and demanding it and yet no one is acting civil to one another or thinking civil about different people. I feel it's not just about talking about being right yet it is also fake in ways! If that makes sense I don't know what the solution is well there was one before but too late but even if it was done it may still be that way.

    I feel people don't look at all the issues anymore it's about being good character and "morally right" and what i'm seeing is hate agains people deemed "different" such as gays. I'm so sick of that what's morally right? Stuff like the first post stated? I'm also seeing prejudice behavior more and more. My white brother and girlfriend make remarks that I KNOW my parents and myself never made and it's visious. I had some coworker use the n word in front of me. It was only once and i think she stopped it because my mouth hit the floor. Maybe it's not resurgence it's just still there and people who think it's not oh boy it is or feel it's not harmful well it sure is brewing and what's going to come out of here! I really feel hate crimes are in the works or in the future big time. And this mind set is helping it. I'm not blaming anyone for it i really think it just evovled and don't know how to fix it.

    Also I really feel the news is such a mess lately it's all garbage! It's not about news it's about ratings. Maybe it's always been that way but we used to do the 5 Ws: Who, What, When, Where, and How (ok that's not w) but a lot of times this is not covered. Some shows are so sensationalize. I watched a network with the Schiavo case and the one comentator who was a particular party that they have these stupid 'talk show' where not much news but banter between 2 parties and it is so obvious on some of them the one party is delibrately made weaker or nasty to inflate the main guy. I do not remember that on most news. It used to be equal let both views say their point and yeah get heated but each knowledgable about their point. Not anymore or you have to keep an eye out for it and realize you may be watching manipulated crap. The problem is i feel the majority don't realize it and watch it anyway or more horribly just don't care!! Anyway they asked the sister and brother of terri when she dies are they planning to charge the husband with murder. Now right now i think they are still or at that time they felt something might happen to intervene and hoping to keep her alive and then to ask that (this is no debate about this case just the news people here i'm getting at)! And they woudn't answer and they kept pressing it on them and you can see in their face they were offended. Not that they won't but just they were upset to begin with and it was just nasty. Yep here i go on a tanget again. And not only that with that case quick i feel anyone in support of the husband at least the protestors in position out the hospice act as if you're anti christian when it is a personal issue between any person and whatever decision is what it is. That's the main thing i can't stand just well if you disagree you're totally wrong and that's that. Sorry but the people i hang out with are a part of this new behavior and the only one who agrees with me is my dad and best friend all the way in fl! See everyone's complacent right now even if they disagree with things and it's driving me nuts. And yeah i'm a wimp i'm too afriad to go against it either. Ok so i'm part of the problem. Ok i'm shutting up now.
  5. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from CHATSDALE
    everything dumb, stupid cannot be laid at bush's doorstep..get real he is not a member of the michigan legislature

    i don't know exactly what is in the michigan law...maybe they just have their brains frozen after a particular harsh winter
    however this opens the door to even odder discrimination...what about treating left handed people
    HOWEVER...a catholic based hospital should not be required to have abortions done in their facility...a jewish hospital shouldnot be required to serve ham and porkchops..
    some things should be left to common sense...
    if you lost a child to drug use you may not be the best person to care for someone you know is a dealer or user...but you should turn care over to a competent healthcare giver
    and as has been noted an emergency room does not have the time to determine what is acceptable and what is not
    I don't believe that Catholic hospitals are under any requirement to perform abortions, are they? In any case, you are talking about a facility having the right to offer specific services and comparing that to a physician refusing to provide services to a specific group of people. As far as I'm concerned, it is unethical and discriminatory. And what do serving or not serving bacon and ham have to do with patient care???
  6. by   Thunderwolf
    What an article. How ignorant and backward can people become? Refusing to treat because the care giver is just that insecure with him or herself. Homosexuals now. Elderly next. Children who are permanently impaired. This is how socialism at its worst took hold in Nazi Germany long ago. Idiots never cease to amaze me. It still happens, even in our own day and age.
    Last edit by Thunderwolf on Mar 29, '05
  7. by   NRSKarenRN
    Don't know this website. Has anyone checked to verify if legislation actually introduced?
  8. by   NRSKarenRN
    house bill 5006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg....e=2003-hb-5006


    hb 5006 as introduced:
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-hebh-5006.htm

    a health care provider may object as a matter
    of conscience to providing or participating in a health care service on ethical, moral, or religious grounds.

    (2) a health care provider shall notify his or her employer
    in writing of a conscientious objection described in subsection

    [font='courier new']

    [color=#0100ff]house bill no. 5006 (h-3) as amended april 21, 2004

    [color=#0100ff]

    1 (1). the written notice shall be given directly to his or hersupervisor and shall include a statement explaining his or her conscientious objection and the health care service or services to which he or she specifically objects to providing or participating in under this act.





    a health care provider may assert his or herconscientious objection under any of the following conditions:
    (a) upon being offered employment.
    (b) at the time the health care provider adopts [color=#0100ff][[color=#0100ff]an] ethical, moral, or religious belief system that conflicts with participation in a health care service.

    (c) within 24 hours after he or she is asked or has received notice that he or she is scheduled to participate in a health care service to which he or she conscientiously objects.

    michigan senate bill 972

    http://www.consciencelaws.org/propos.../plusa04b.html



    legislative session ended for 2004 with both house and senate bills referred to health committees. bill will need to be reintroduced for 2005-2006 session if still going forward.
    seems aim of this bill is to allow an employee right to conscientious object to participate in healthcare activities without fear of reprisal.

    legislation introduced all the time that may or may not be good policy. that's why legislative hearings are held, citizens have chance to write to legislators for/against legislation and debate held prior to vote.

    that's the purpose of this forum: to empower healthcare professionals to know what's happening within their state and nationally regarding healthcare legislation; learn how to influence legislation so it's impowering and not destructive and try to have legislation enacted that serves the best interest of professionals and protects consumers/patients.



    -----------------------------------------
    michigan house backs conscience rights for health-care workers

    [font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]by the associated press
    [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]04.22.04


    http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13224

    noli irritare leones: conscientious objector policy act

    http://www.miplannedparenthood.org/t...lation-adv.htm

    university choice coalition - conscientious objector policy act
  9. by   kmchugh
    Reading it over, it appears that the bill is targeted at providing protection for health care providers who wish, on moral or religious grounds, from participating in certain health care procedures. To an extent, I guess I can agree with the idea in principle. For example, though I am against passing blanket laws prohibiting abortion, my own personal beliefs would mitigate against my participation in the procedure.

    However, I question the need for such a law. We have had this type of conversation before. Most of us recognize that we have a right not to participate in the procedure itself. The solution to the problem is simple. For physicians, they simply do not have to offer the procedure. For nurses, we simply need not seek employment at facilities or in units that provide the procedure we find objectionable. At the same time, I have found on this board, at least, a universal agreement that we would have no right to refuse to provide care to a person who has had the procedure. So, while I might have the right not to participate in an abortion as a CRNA, I do not see my right extending to not providing anesthesia care to a patient who has had an abortion with complications and therefore now needs surgery.

    What troubles me the most about this law is not that it provides protection for health care workers with moral objections to procedures, it provides the same protections to workers who object to lifestyles, and it goes far beyond the question of the "gay lifestyle." Were I racist, I could claim moral objections to interracial marriage, and refuse to treat patients in such marriages, and be protected by this bill.

    This is another symptom of the undue sway and influence the ultra-right religious members of our society have gained to our government. I'm pretty conservative (surprise) and find this bill to be heinous on every level. I wonder, would I be able to apply for employment at a clinic that provided abortions, then after hiring tell them of my moral objections? Could I then force the clinic to continue to pay me to work there, even though I could not perform the duties for which I was hired? I don't see any protection in the bill that would prevent such an eventuality.

    Kevin McHugh
    Last edit by kmchugh on Mar 29, '05
  10. by   LPN1974
    How about refusing to care for a PARTICULAR doctor's patients altogether because you don't agree with the doctor's religious practices or HIS lifestyle, or his WHATEVER.
    If we're going to discriminate let's give that right to everyone else.
    Personally, I would not put myself in a situation where I would actively assist an abortion, but I would not refuse to care for a woman who became ill afterwards.
    It would be my conscience I would have to deal with if I refused, but she also has to live with something on her conscience.
    Jesus turned away no one.

    WOW...What a can of worms.
    Last edit by LPN1974 on Mar 29, '05
  11. by   jnette
    I'm speechless.

    I was under the impression that healthcare providers already have the right to refuse to participate in certain procedures on moral grounds... why is this "bill" now so neccessary? How is this new or different? Why do they think they need to introduce some type of "bill" ? Do they not have FAR more pressing issues to deal with?

    This is beyond absurd.

    This viewpoint goes against the very fiber of MY religious/spritual belief system.

    Ergo.. have I the option then to refuse treatment to those who hold this view, or wish to enact this legislation?

    Is this crazy, or what?

    We've always had the right to refuse SOME things.. so just what are they really trying to do here? :uhoh21: Scary indeed.
  12. by   Spidey's mom
    kevin's quote: "i wonder, would i be able to apply for employment at a clinic that provided abortions, then after hiring tell them of my moral objections? could i then force the clinic to continue to pay me to work there, even though i could not perform the duties for which i was hired? i don't see any protection in the bill that would prevent such an eventuality."

    kevin - i don't think, from what i've read, that you would be able to do that.




    a health care provider may assert his or herconscientious objection under any of the following conditions:
    (a) upon being offered employment.
    (b) at the time the health care provider adopts [an] ethical, moral, or religious belief system that conflicts with participation in a health care service.

    (c) within 24 hours after he or she is asked or has received notice that he or she is scheduled to participate in a health care service to which he or she conscientiously objects.

    ************************

    i think we already have the right to object on religious or other grounds.

    this seems overkill to me.

    steph
  13. by   Tweety
    Quote from cheerfuldoer
    Jesus turned no one away for a healing. Who are those docs to deny a human being care! :angryfire

    Human kind has so distored the true teachings of Jesus. If you read about Jesus, he really didn't care about the "lifestyle" of those he associated with. It's the humans after he died that seem to care so much about such sings. In fact he didn't have much to say about "morality" at all, certainly didn't say one word about sexual lifestyle. But he certainly had a lot of harsh words for the so-called pious religious leaders of the time. Wonder what he would say today?
    Last edit by Tweety on Mar 29, '05

close