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?
You can say it's not an option all you like, but this Catholic nursing student refuses to participate in any material way with providing abortions. I won't budge from that but I also realize my obligation to remain working in sectors that minimize my exposure to that. I also will never participate in an infant circumcision, even in clinicals. My moral compass is more important that any professional consideration and I have a right to live by it. I have an obligation to live by it, and the fact that I do makes me a better CNA and will make me a better nurse.
You have every right to live by your moral compass.
To be so pompous as to state that it makes you a better CNA and eventually will make you a better nurse is quite troubling.
You have every right to live by your moral compass.To be so pompous as to state that it makes you a better CNA and eventually will make you a better nurse is quite troubling.
How is it pompous? I never said it makes me a better CNA/future nurse than anyone else. It makes me a better CNA/future nurse than I would be without it.
Your assumptions are your problem, not mine.
I have to chime in on the religious aspect. Being a Catholic, for years I have battled prejudices and misunderstandings, even in my own religion. Even if you believe that homosexuality is wrong and the Bible condemns it (which it does not, and I addressed that earlier in this thread), hatred is NOT a Christian value.
Jesus was condemned by the Pharisees for associating with sinners; the tax collectors Zacchaeus and Matthew (and the list goes on). If one were to think about it logically, believing that these people are sinners, then means that they would need God's love and charity more than the righteously saved. Yet, these are the ones the righteously saved exile and condemn.
Thankfully, the church has realized the errors of their ways and elected Pope Francis. So appropriate is the name, Francis that he took. When God called St Francis of Assisi, God said, "Francis, rebuild my church." Francis thought it was the building in Assisi, which he rebuilt, but it was the church in the world which he also rebuilt.
Using the Bible to hate and discrimination is no less egregious than using the Quran to justify killing. For Christians who would deny to treat any patient for any reason beyond medical (i.e. pregnant nurse), let me remind you of Matthew 25:35-40:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, and I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me in. I was naked and you clothed me. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will say to him, 'Our Lord, When did we see you that you were hungry and we fed you, or that you were thirsty and we gave you drink? And when did we see you, that you were a stranger and we took you in, or that you were naked and we clothed you?' 'And when did we see you sick or in a prison, and we came to you?' And The King answers and says to them, 'Amen, I say to you, as much as you have done to the least of my little brothers, you have done that to me.'
Thankfully, the church has realized the errors of their ways and elected Pope Francis.
I don't think Pope Francis is who you think he is.
I don't expect the RCC performing gay marriages, but it is nice to see the preaching of love as Jesus did. He even told priest to tone down the fire and brimstone in sermons because they were chasing away the people who needed the most help.
I liked JPII (despite his human shortcomings). He was the person the church needed at the time to help defeat communism. Benedict realized that he was not the one to lead the church and stepped aside. That is (almost) unheard of. As a believer, I have to believe there must have been divine intervention there.
Is Francis perfect? No, but his message is one of the best that I have heard out of the church in the last 25 years. I think that is because he lives among his flock, not in a palace on the hill. The other priests that I have heard truly speaking the words of Christ; love, charity, forgiveness, have all been ones working in the trenches.
Do you think being GLBT is a choice? The life these people lead with all the hatred and bigotry they face is much more peaceful than denying who they are. To many, death is a better choice than denial. The people who get their hands dirty know the struggles they face and that they are basically good human beings.
I bet those who justify not treating have no problems with legally imposed, medically unnecessary translady partsl ultrasounds (the abortion issue). A medically necessarily or medically advised TVU is a completely different thing from a legally mandated one. The issue is simply one of consent. Here is a doctor speaking out about the issue: A Doctor on Translady partsl Ultrasounds.
Perhaps the saddest commentary is that refusal to treat based on sexual identity is even an issue at all. Why should we even be having this conversation?
How is it pompous? I never said it makes me a better CNA/future nurse than anyone else. It makes me a better CNA/future nurse than I would be without it.Your assumptions are your problem, not mine.
Perhaps I should have used the word pious. Using the pretext of religion to rationalize prejudice against others is never a good thing.
I think once you choose a career dealing with human beings you have to leave your views at the door! We are nurses to treat the ill and restore them. Who or what they are should be irrelevant. Some would argue about topics like abortion etc. well that is simple do not place yourself in a job where you have bear witness of such procedures, do not work in the prison system. But someone who is transgendered or gay does not take away from who you are! What happen to compassion? Leave the Church and state separate. It is about human rights not someone's views who have no business in the patient's room. If one feel such strong convictions get out the healthcare industry, please!!!!!
To be clear, I was responding to this post, which I partially quoted, which tells people of strong religious conviction to get out of health care. Funny how a person can decry bigotry, yet express such vehement bigotry in the same post.
I have never refused to treat a person I knew was gay. Working in hospice I've had gay HIV patients at end of life, and gay couples where one partner has cancer or some other terminal disease. Regardless of how they live, right now they're a person who needs hospice care. Unless caring for them somehow requires an endorsement of their way of life, I won't refuse in the future either.
No, I don't think being attracted to the same sex is a choice most of the time. I'm sure you've heard the term "lesbian until graduation" where women have same sex relationships in college because it's hip, supported, and pisses off mom and dad with satisfying alacrity, but once out in the real world date and marry men. That's a choice. That's also not most homosexuality. There is no proof it's genetic either. I tend to believe it's all or mostly environmental factors growing up, and there may be a genetic disposition that plays in somehow.
And now back to regularly scheduled programming....
Perhaps I should have used the word pious. Using the pretext of religion to rationalize prejudice against others is never a good thing.
Pious is not an insult. It means you respect God, try to obey Him, and strive for holiness. So far you're 0 for 2 on attempts to insult me.
As for using religion to rationalize prejudice, I did no such thing. My religious beliefs will dictate what's in my heart and mind, and how I vote on certain issues. But when I'm at work, how I treat people is what matters. I'm confident I do my job well for all my patients, have had no complaints, and all good performance reviews. I'm not at work here, and this is a discussion board, therefore I'll express my views.
Do you think being GLBT is a choice?
This was not directed at any person or their posts. This was just another demonstration of the hypocrisy of using religion to discriminate against someone due to their lifestyle.
As an aside, my senior thesis for my undergrad counseling degree was that that all humans are born bisexual (Kinsey's theory and the Kinsey Scale). My proof was that both sexes of human beings could have pleasurable sex and achieve orgasm with both same and opposite sex partners. Hence; we are (at least have the capacity to be) bisexual.
My biggest take Away from the research that I did is that human beings are fluid and constantly changing; we are not static. That said, what label is attached to us (such as sexual identity) is only valid for the moment (the here and now), because it can change...
As for "lesbian until graduation," her and her friends were in my study...
ellieheart
35 Posts
If "Hate" could be considered a "religious belief" I suppose there would be grounds for not treating gays.