Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

[Roy Fokker]

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

@: http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes

:stone

[Faeriewand, ASN, RN]

I thought as nurses we were to treat people with equality and dignity, irrespective of race, sex, oreintation? I dont think this would pass in the uk, if we refused to treat a patient because of the mention, I am sure the NMC would pull us up for breaking our code of professional conduct.

Also if these people are refusing to treat people because of religious reasons, I think they should maybe look at the biblical story of the Samaritan!

So tell me are Michigan homosexuals branded at birth? Just so the doctors know !

So do you think I would get away with not treating a hetrosexual on religious grounds? Its a total forifice.....the religious right rearing it theocentric head again.

Who's going to treat the homosexual nurses? Its a shame Christians portray such a horrible image of Christ. I am sure he would have been the first to treat a homosexual, his homosexual neighbour.

Fejao x

I just wanted to tell you Right on Fejao!

Soooo.... do they have problems like this in the UK? It's socialized medicine right? How does it work there?

FW

[fejao]

I just wanted to tell you Right on Fejao!

Soooo.... do they have problems like this in the UK? It's socialized medicine right? How does it work there?

FW

Well as a nurse in the UK we are bound by the Nursing and Midwifery Councils (NMC) code of professional conduct which says "As a registered nurse you must respect the patient as an individual"

Part 2-2.2 "You are personally accountable for ensuring that you promote and protect the intrests and dignity of patients and clients, irrespective of gender, age, race, ability, sexuality, economic status, culture and religios or political beliefs."

So its very clear that nurses in the UK cannot discrimminate against anyone. However I though as nurses we were there for the patients, yes we may have religious beliefs however our primary job it to care for our patients. It very sad that in America you can openly discriminate against another human being because of whom they love, especially when they need a nurse or doctor most. I think it shows that some in America are in it for the money and not the patients. It shows that America has this veil of religion which is just an act, they do not show the true love of Christ to their neighbours, its sad.

Fejao x

[LPN1974, LPN]

"As a registered nurse you must respect the patient as an individual"

It shows that America has this veil of religion which is just an act, they do not show the true love of Christ to their neighbours, its sad.

Please don't judge everyone by what a few people do.

You must also respect Americans and anyone else from any other country as individuals, because there are plenty who have the love the Christ in their hearts, and would not discriminate against anyone because of their sexual preference.

I may not agree with their lifestyle, but the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged."

That goes for anyone, anywhere, anytime, not just for Americans.

[mattsmom81]

I think the real point is whether a doc can decide who will be his 'client' and can he refuse procedures/care. Some don't think they have a right, I do.

I've seen docs 'fire' patients, deservedly so, they're abusive, noncompliant, drains on the system who come into the hospital for freebee care then refuse most helpful recommendations.. I'd love to walk away from an abusive SOB myself but as an employee I cannot except in very specific circumstances. I can refuse a patient due to safety reasons ie no staff...but it is risky.

Personally I think we as health care providers SHOULD have more rights to make a decision not to accept a patient, for whatever reason...nurses AND docs; particularly in private practice, where I don't feel somebody has a right to tell me what I can and can't do as long as I'm within the law..

I wonder if this is where docs are; if so I understand. They are overwhelmed with malpractice and frivolous lawsuits.Many docs are overloaded in their practices...this accounts for a lot of their crankiness in my experience. they have to say 'no, enough' sometimes too.

I cannot believe it...I am defending doctors.

[fejao]

Please don't judge everyone by what a few people do.

You must also respect Americans and anyone else from any other country as individuals, because there are plenty who have the love the Christ in their hearts, and would not discriminate against anyone because of their sexual preference.

I may not agree with their lifestyle, but the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged."

That goes for anyone, anywhere, anytime, not just for Americans.

Yes you are right not all Americans are like this, I am sure its a select few. I am sorry for the overgeneralisation.

Fejao x

[caroladybelle, BSN, RN]

It shows that America has this veil of religion which is just an act, they do not show the true love of Christ to their neighbours, its sad.

For some of this BB, Christ and religion are not inter related.

[LydiaNN]

For some of this BB, Christ and religion are not inter related.

Very true. And for some more of us, ethics and religion aren't inter-related.

[Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN]

Very true. And for some more of us, ethics and religion aren't inter-related.

Very true.

[nursesarah]

*contemplates entering heated topic*

ok...i have a bit of a beef with some ideas expressed in this particular topic. and contrary to what some people might believe, i have issues with BOTH sides of the argument.

let me first explain that i believe people are tossing around words and terms without fully understanding the inherent meaning of them. basically, it seems to me that this post deals with intolerance/prejuidice.

if you look at the underlying meaning of the concept of tolerance, you see that the problem is not found in the word or the meaning of the word but rather the application of the word. Tolerance defined is merely the allowance of various views to be expressed, and the respect inherent in the expression of varying opinions.

however, the use of the term 'tolerance' in liberal society involves much more than that. One group of people uses the term in terms of its actual meaning, the other group adds stuff to it, and thats when the mud starts flying. (i'm borrowing heavily this next bit from my friend who was able to explain it so much better then i am).

The liberal uses the term 'tolerance' to mean a convolution of 'tolerance', 'acceptance', and 'assent.' 'Tolerance', is the allowance of the expression of other views, and the minimal respect necessary to ensure that other views are capable of being expressed. 'Acceptance' is a favourable disposition towards the person who is expressing the belief. Acceptance goes beyond simple toleration in that it assigns a positive value judgement on the other person. i can accpet another regardless of the value judgements I place on their belief. 'Assent' is different from acceptance in that it looks beyond the person and towards the belief. It responds favourable or positively not only to the person, but also to the belief. It goes beyond toleration and acceptance by saying that the belief is justified and possibly even true.

so, by saying one has to tolerate (as in, not be intolerant/prejuidiced towards) homosexuality, one is usually following the more liberal definition of the word.

however, the term tolerate is devoid of any value judgements, either positive or negative. Its unfair to both camps that there be this definitional issue in the word tolerance, because discussion cannot occur: the starting points are at two different places.

so how does this relate to this argument concerning this Bill being discussed in michigan? the issue is that both sides of this arguement are trying to convince the other of their opinion. however, this won't work because both sides have started the arguement from two different places.

now, let's not become overly-dramatic with blanket statements such as "if we allow this what's next?". let's think logically. according to basic human rights, a doctor does not have the right to refuse to treat a patient based on sexual orientation. this does not state s/he has to tolerate-accept-assent to the lifestyle. it simply says, s/he's a doctor, s/he has to treat him/her. what this law is saying is that any doctor has now has the right to, upon employment, state to his/her employer that, knowing their personal/moral/religious convictions they have a concientious objection to treating patients whose lifestyle is in opposition to their own. in an emergency situation, they do not have this luxury. but it appears to be put in place as a measure to protect doctors from doing anything they are not comfortable with doing.

rest assured, it is not only Christian doctors, but also Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindu, etc. doctors that would make use of this law.

in my personal opinion, it is a good idea. it is a protection (and i use that term in a legalistic context) not only for the doctors, but also for the patients. we have not lost any definition of tolerance and/or acceptance. we have simply made allowances for different viewpoints as regarding medical care.

sorry for the excessively long post. congrats if you made it down to the bottomw.

[Sherri RN]

I could not believe that. I had to look for supporting web articles on the internet to colloborate that. That would so not go over in California, Dude.

Sherri, RN

Fairfield, CA

[simao pt]

I had to double check on the date of that article, it sounded like the doctors have the mindset of 1805, not 2005.

Like i said, leave your own personal morals out of the workplace.

My feelings, exactly.

[Hockeytown]

Everytime I seem to read something about anything it somehow is blamed on Bush or Republicians. I have lived in Michigan most of my life and I have been a nurse for 8 years. This is the first time I have ever heard of this bill. It has always been common knowledge that nurses could always refuse assisting in a procedure, such as abortion, if they felt they could not morally care for the person. Let me remind everyone here that Michigan is a VERY democratic state. The Governor who has veto power over any house legislation is a Democrat! So please stick to the issues at hand instead of turning this into a political debate. This bill has not efffected quality medical care in Michigan and I highly doubt it ever will.