The constant debate over the rights of those who identify with a particular sexual identity seems never-ending. How does it affect nursing? How does the new proposed bill in Michigan make the situation change? Find out the facts before forming an opinion.
Patients come in all sorts of flavors. You have your frequent flyers, your noncompliants, your criminals, and your sweet little senior citizens. All patients are different, and this is part of the joy of nursing. Everyone has their own story, and we get to listen to them, help them, and see them flourish. While not everyone agrees with it, patients come in all kinds of sexual orientations, too. You can have those who are gay, bisexual, transexual, or transvestites. Just a normal day on the job for a nurse, right?
Sexual identity is a hot button issue, and it is becoming hotter. The internet almost blew up a few weeks ago about a Michigan law that purported to allow EMS personnel to deny treatment to patients who identified with a particular sexual identity. Supposedly, this bill allowed medical personnel to refuse based on religious beliefs. You can't believe everything you read on the internet, folks, and there is more to this story than meets the eye. It still brings up the ethical question: can medical workers refuse to treat those who violate a strongly held religious belief?
The bill currently under consideration in Michigan is called the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, or RFRA. It is currently in the Michigan house, where it was proposed, and still has to work through the system and be signed by the government before it is law. Therefore, the RFRA is not a law in Michigan, despite what the internet says. It is a long, long way from that, and it could change drastically as the politicians get their hands on it. No need to worry, really. It's just an idea at this point.
Another crucial bit to understand is that the bill does not specifically give medical personnel the right to refuse treatment to gay people. The bill doesn't mention medicine or homosexuals at all. Instead, the bill suggests that a person who is by law required to act can choose not to act due to a strongly held religious belief. This means that it could be used as a defense in court if the one who should act is sued by the one not acted upon. Mostly, this would entail civil cases, but this isn't where the story ends.
As most lawyers do, far more has been read into this bill than originally intended. Opponents of the bill have suggested that this law could be applied to medical personnel, from doctors to nurses to EMTs. In fact, it could affect any person required by law to act, and they would be in their rights to refuse. Please note, this is not what the bill says, but it is merely a possibility that could be read into the law to protect a medical professional who didn't act when they were required to.
It also brings up the idea of religious freedom. If you know that someone is gay and you disagree with that, do you have to act? The proposed law technically says no. When you hold a sincere and strong religious belief about something, the state cannot force you to act against those beliefs -- even if it means that someone else suffers because of it. This is a bit about the separation of church and state in addition to medicine. How far do religious beliefs go? Can you refuse someone anything because they don't agree with your religious point of view? For instance, should you be forced to rent your property to someone who is gay? According to this law, you wouldn't have to, and that would get you out of a discrimination suit.
Despite the fact that this bill is far from a law and despite the fact that it doesn't directly affect medical workers, it does bring up a disturbing question: do nurses have the right to refuse to treat patients who are gay? Look at it this way: Do we have the right to refuse treatment of someone with HIV or Ebola? Do we have the right to refuse treatment of a patient whose religion is different than ours? Do we have the right to refuse treatment to those who have a violent criminal past? I have taken care of child molesters, rapists, and murders. I certainly don't agree with their actions, but I took care of them to the best of my ability.
Why is it different for someone of a different sexual orientation? It all boils down to the patient. Here is someone sick in front of you. Does it matter how they have sex? Does it matter what they believe? Do you have the right to play God and decide who lives and who dies? No matter who our patients are, I believe that we have the legal and ethical responsibility to care for them to their last breath. We didn't come into nursing to pick and choose those that we will care for, and politics does not belong at the patient's bedside. Instead, nurses should care for who they are charged with -- criminal, homosexual, black, white, Islamic, or whatever. No one should be denied care, and that includes the modern day lepers, those with a different sexual identity.
References
Michigan House Bill No. 5958; Accessed January 9, 2015
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBH-5958.pdf
Snopes; Slake Michigan; Accessed January 9, 2015
snopes.com: Michigan Exempts Emergency Medical Personnel from Treating Gay People?
Hi, Ruby. I had to go back and re-read the original article, and yes, it was referencing a law that allowed EMS to refuse treatment to persons of different sexual expressions based on their religious beliefs. That is why I commented as a Christian. Otherwise, you are right...it would be better on the Nursing and Spirituality forum. Christian nurses are confident that they have been called, and as Christians, we surrender our rights to judge others when we receive Jesus, because he commanded us not to judge. I know many Christians disobey that command and behave badly as well. They are, hopefully, only misguided, foolish and immature. I assure you, though, Ruby, that we are on the same side here. We want the best for our patients. ALL of our patients. You approach patient care from an ethical perspective, i from a Christian one. We are sisters, you and I. Let us not quarrel, but stand united for quality patient care. And thank you for being an ICU/CCU nurse. I could not do that...the stress would put me in one of the beds. I do geriatrics...thats plenty of stress enough.
Hi, Ruby. I had to go back and re-read the original article, and yes, it was referencing a law that allowed EMS to refuse treatment to persons of different sexual expressions based on their religious beliefs. That is why I commented as a Christian. Otherwise, you are right...it would be better on the Nursing and Spirituality forum. Christian nurses are confident that they have been called, and as Christians, we surrender our rights to judge others when we receive Jesus, because he commanded us not to judge. I know many Christians disobey that command and behave badly as well. They are, hopefully, only misguided, foolish and immature. I assure you, though, Ruby, that we are on the same side here. We want the best for our patients. ALL of our patients. You approach patient care from an ethical perspective, i from a Christian one. We are sisters, you and I. Let us not quarrel, but stand united for quality patient care. And thank you for being an ICU/CCU nurse. I could not do that...the stress would put me in one of the beds. I do geriatrics...thats plenty of stress enough.
I love ICU. I'd probably run screaming off into the sunset if I were forced to do geriatrics. Yet I am so thankful there are nurses out there who love geriatrics . . . my mother had Alzheimer's and spent seven years in a nursing home. I tried to take care of her at home, and I just couldn't do it. I'll be forever grateful to the nurses and CNAs who took care of her and made her feel special.
I'm not reading 123 comments to see if this was addressed in comments. It's not at the top of the article so it still needs addressing by way of correction and apology.
Transvestites are not a part of this conversation. You meant trangendered. Which is not a sexual identity but a gender identity. Our language as nurses is important. We disrespect and dehumanize patients when using the wrong language.
We are professionals. This isn't a question. We aren't judge or jury, we are HEALTH care providers. I find the entire premise offensive. I have never met a nurse that would hesitate to treat anyone because of their politics, religion or personal politics. Now, I would not want to be forced to euthanize anyone or participate in an abortion, nothing illegal or unethical but this is crazy. In my experience we are better than that. I am a Christian, I would HAVE to provide care to anyone without hesitation because of my faith. So I don't know what kind of religion this is referring to.
This would be highly unethical. So do nurses not provide care for those that committed a crime- oh no wait, we have nurses that do just that. I would hope that the nursing boards and organizations would stand up for the patients.
I was appalled this weekend. I had a pt who had gotten hurt. HIV, probably homeless, had a sig other that cared. Waited and waited NPO for a sx that never happened. I advocated to get them to decide about the sx so he could eat. Arranged to get his bf food. Advocated for better pain management. then when they decided he should go home and come back for sx, I advocated for sponsoring pain meds (hadn't been able to afford anti-retrivirals) and a $5 taxi ride home.
He was almost in tears when he left. He told me no had been as kind to him as I had been. I did my job with no judgement. I had a hurting pt. I am so sad that another facility and other nurses would be so mean (not going into details). I have cared for prisoners and drug addicts, too. It is my job to care for them with dignity.
I get really sick of the assumption by many on this board that religious people can't provide equally good care to their patients because of their religion. My religion preaches the inherent value and dignity of all human lives, so I'd actually be violating my religion's teachings if I provided substandard care to anyone intentionally.
That's your interpretation of Christianity. I read the Bible, and that is not the message I recognize.
The whole tenet of Christianity is that humans are such evil creatures that Yahweh had to send his spirit to earth in a human form so that he could pour out his blood to cleanse people's sin. If I am not convinced of this doctrine, I would be condemned for eternity in a lake of burning fire.
You believe in this along with the whole homosexuality as immoral choice; you voice your opinion in a public forum where a patient like me can see.
And then you expect me to look at you as a compassionate and empathetic nurse?
Brandon was correct. If Christians cannot check their ideology at the door, they should not take care of non-Christian patients besides their own kind.
I swear that if there is a legislation that allows patients to choose a nurse based on their specific religious organization, I would support that 100%. Nursing is about patients' well-being. They should not have to put up with people who take care of their well-being and believe they would burn in hell.
I'm not reading 123 comments to see if this was addressed in comments. It's not at the top of the article so it still needs addressing by way of correction and apology.Transvestites are not a part of this conversation. You meant trangendered. Which is not a sexual identity but a gender identity. Our language as nurses is important. We disrespect and dehumanize patients when using the wrong language.
Just for reference regarding the word transgendered:
The adjective transgender should never have an extraneous "-ed" tacked onto the end. An "-ed" suffix adds unnecessary length to the word and can cause tense confusion and grammatical errors. It also brings transgender into alignment with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer. You would not say that Elton John is "gayed" or Ellen DeGeneres is "lesbianed," therefore you would not say Chaz Bono is "transgendered."
As a transgender nurse let me clarify that transvestite refers to people (male or female) who enjoy dressing in clothes associated with the opposite gender and often derive some sexual gratification from said activity. This term is very derogatory to transgender individuals where the central issue is that the assigned sex at birth does not conform to what the individual sees them self as internally. To date much of my research has been done as a transgender nurse and the disparities in healthcare that impact the transgender community. The essential basis we as healthcare providers need to be informed about is that sexual identity and gender identity are two different concepts and that both exist on a spectrum rather than being on a binary as we have traditionally viewed such matters.
It's being reported this AM that the Trump administration is going to announce today that it is creating a new office with the DHHS to proect the rights of healthcare professionals to practice their faith without being penalized -- the point of this office is to expand the protections that already exist for healthcare professionals to decline to participate in procedures they object to on religious grounds, and expand that kind of protection to any kind of moral or religious objection to providing treatment, e.g., refusing to treat gay or transgendered individuals because you disapprove of them on moral or religious grounds.
Ruby Vee, BSN
17 Articles; 14,051 Posts
It is unethical to refuse to treat a patient based on sexual identity -- the Christian argument is better saved for the Nursing and Spirituality forum. Many of us here aren't Christian, though we choose to behave in moral, ethical ways. Nursing is not a calling; it's a job and possibly even a career. We didn't "surrender our rights" when we "accepted a call." We're not priests, nuns or monks. We are nurses.
I don't understand the issues of not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. It's hateful. And it's unChristian because Jesus commanded Christians to "love them as I have loved you." There is probably something similar in the religious teachings of most religions. Furthermore, it is arguably against the law.