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?
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.
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.
However, there are many that I have seen (and I am sure others have, but I will refrain from making such an assumption) and experienced nurses who have had their moral and religious compass so high that they have NEGLECTED patients; I have witnessed gay patients be ignored for hours, AIDS patients ignored for shifts because of nurses' "right" to deem who is fit for care-and this was less than 10 years ago.
I'm sure I am not the only one who is witnessed it; unfortunately it can be VERY common for nurses to do so, despite the diversity of our profession.
SNurseKylam,We are all bisexual (Freud, Kinsey, Banterings). We are built for it, people of either sex can have pleasurable sex and achieve orgasm with both members of the opposite sex and same sex.
That just further demonstrates the hypocrisy of this law, since we are all (biologically) the same.
Kinsey was a criminal who paid pedophiles to molest children for his "research." He was also wildly driven by his personal agenda to banish the concept of guilt from EVERYTHING. His research should be thrown into the same pile that used to support lobotomies and removal of the uterus to cure hysteria. (Ever wonder why that surgery is called "hysterectomy"?)
Yes, I know why it is called a hysterectomy.
...His research should be thrown into the same pile that used to support lobotomies and removal of the uterus to cure hysteria.
And there is so much more to go in that pile: annual physical exams, pap smears, PSA tests, etc.
Kinsey was a criminal who paid pedophiles to molest children for his "research."
Can you provide a citation for this?
Dr. Dix P. Poppas, this is a real pedophile (for comparison).
...He was also wildly driven by his personal agenda to banish the concept of guilt from EVERYTHING.
I found having your conscious surgically removed works much better.
Freud pioneered the concept, and (apparently) you take no umbrage with Freud. Many others also have similar theories, such as Wilhelm Fliess and Fritz Klein.
What I am talking about is innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality). The author Gore Vidal described it best:
We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. [...] regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime [...] Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.
My point is the absurdity of the law...
It also sucks when people equate having a moral or religious viewpoint with which they don't agree, with hatred toward others.
This generally only happens when the moral or religious viewpoint is demonstrated or communicated in an intolerant, ignorant, hateful, or discriminatory fashion. Unfortunatly, that sort of appearance and attitudinal display is too common amongst those who would call themselves religious.
This article has been an eye opener for me.
Maybe I am just not politically inclined or something. I've always thought the right of refusal based on religion was primarily concerned with doctors not wanting to prescribe birth control.
I always shrugged my shoulders and wondered why not just get a new doctor if you want them.
Having read your article, I do see there is much opportunity for abuse of the right to refuse based on religious grounds.
Navigating this political minefield is no easy task.
I will do more to keep myself better informed now. Thanks for the article.
If the state legislature has time to debate something this stupid than MI must be in great shape. Schools, taxes, infrastructure, etc must all be working perfectly is they have time for this nonsense
Yup, everything is fine in Michigan unless you are not in favor of poisoning an entire city to save a few million dollars, gutting education funds, and letting the roads fall apart so that you can continue with fiscal austerity and tax reductions for the wealthiest citizens and corporations.
Yup, everything is fine in Michigan unless you are not in favor of poisoning an entire city to save a few million dollars, gutting education funds, and letting the roads fall apart so that you can continue with fiscal austerity and tax reductions for the wealthiest citizens and corporations.
Lol I was just about to say this! We must be neighbors in this "perfect state" haha
danielle2000, MSN, RN
174 Posts
No one denying you having a moral compass about how YOU live, but those who have made choices that may not agree with your RELIGIOUS MORALS is not the patient's concern or problem. They are to receive the best care possible and that is what makes better nurses. Those who do not let their beliefs interfere with what they are licensed to do. Avoiding certain aspects of nursing is the right of the health care provider. We as nurses can pick and choose where we would like to practice. I realize in the NICU I do not believe in saving micro preemies that are on the cusp of viability, yet the parents want everything done for them. I do not agree or like it but my attitude towards the parents does not change. The care I provide for their baby will be optimal because that is what I am trained to do. I give them their respect answer any questions they may have. Taking it one day at a time letting them vent their feelings of fear, sorrow, and hope during that stressful time in their lives.