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

[live4today, 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.

Fejao x

In defense of my fellow Americans, not all Americans fall into this category anymore than everyone in other countries fall under the same trap of ideas.

MANY people in America strongly believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior separate from the religion (doctrine) they may choose to be affectionate towards.

When people lump Christ together with religious doctrines which your statement above seems to do, it shows how many people in the world (universally) STILL don't get the difference between woshipping Christ and worshipping religion. There is a huge difference in the two. :)

[mattsmom81]

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.

Thanks for posting these observations. My DH is from Michigan and said the same things. I feel the majority of posters here have overreacted and have twisted the bill into some kind of evil 'plot' to discriminate which I too highly doubt is the case.

[Candidnt]

with the current sociopolitical trends going to the far right, and the right wing with the help of the bible belt in the south and the plains, I'm not surprised that a law like this is being passed. I'm beginning to wonder if we're going to become a fourth reich, and gays in the US will be what jews were in germany? After all, how often do you hear the religious right blame america's problems on gays and lesbians, etc...I can't stand religious people, yet I treat them. Integral into my training and the theoretical framework is the dignity and uniqueness of each individual being and their rights to be respected, and their right to care, etc.

Interestingly enough, guess who is about to join our ranks? In Topeka, Kansas, a nursing student is trying to unseat somebody in local politics who helped push through an anti-discrimination bill to protect gays and lesbians in that municipality. The nursing student? A relative of the Reverand (*cough cough*) Fred Phelps of GodHatesFags.com. I'm beginning to think they should build a mile high wall around that state. I'm sure she'll refuse to treat gays in whatever institution that hires her. I wonder what they'd do about it.

[BigBirdExplorer]

NorthER,RN:

First - get the phrase right, it's LAND of the Free, HOME of the BRAVE.

Second - if people who choose alternate lifestyles and people who choose various religions and people who make all the other choices that the country allows because it's a country based on individual freedom have the right to make those choices, then why don't healthcare providers also have the right to make choices?

I think it's long past time that we be given the same rights as the general public, I'm tired of hearing that my civil rights are violated because some liberal politicians decide that EVERYBODY has the same right to access medical care. There are plenty of providers who willingly treat all kinds of groups of people, it just might take some effort on the part of the person seeking care to find a provider to treat them. TOO BAD!!! You make your choices, you pay your dues.

This is very similar to the writer who didn't know what to do when asked if she was "born again". Why do individual rights fly out the window just because one is a nurse (or doctor or tech or other type of provider)????? I should have the right to participate, or to refuse to participate, just like the general public. I don't believe I have the right to be rude, but I do believe I have the same right to be as firm in my convictions as any other free and brave person.

[Candidnt]

Yes, it's the land of the free and the home of the brave (the patriot and scoundrel song).

First, you have the right to freedom of association. if you don't want to like a particular group of people and don't want to associate with them, you have that right. it may make you ignorant, intolerant, whaterver...but you do have that right.

however, in the health care spectrum, I don't think that applies. in refusing to care for somebody simply because you don't like them, etc. you violate the very principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence that drive hearlth care...remember, the doing good, and do no harm? If you refuse to treat, simply because you don't like them, and harm comes to them, then you have created a serious ethical breach. Not to mention, violated the rights of another in the process.

Anybody who can not put their prejudices or personal feeling aside to do their duties in the warzone that is health care, should not be in it. I can think of times that I have had to bite my tongue, hold my breath, dreaded going into a room, etc. But, I have done it. Ethically, the moral precepts of the profession require me to do so. And, I do so.

[hypnotic_nurse]

Second - if people who choose alternate lifestyles and people who choose various religions and people who make all the other choices that the country allows because it's a country based on individual freedom have the right to make those choices, then why don't healthcare providers also have the right to make choices?

Because everyone should have the right to access health care. You don't have to go to their church, hang out in their neighborhood, be friends with them, or whatever. But I think it's a total ethical failure on the part of the caregiver to with hold a livesaving intervention.

If the old coot next door who hates me were to need CPR, I'd be there. I'd probably be sued later by his nutty family, but I'd still be there. And I can't stand him, either.

I think we already had this prior to desegregation, when people of one race couldn't go to a hospital for people of another race. And it didn't work then.

Now if the therapeutic relationship isn't working out, then the healthcare provider should be able to "fire" the patient. But there should be a valid reason.

[kpapi]

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

:stone

O.K. what century are we living in? I was sure we were out of the dark ages. Will there be a survey prior to treatment on sexual preference? Is this really leagal? I agree, this is wrong on so many levels, where do you start to turn something like this around?

[EdieBrous, BSN, MSN]

Big Bird - I have very strong moral objections to people who choose the bigot lifestyle. It's nice to know you would support my "right" to refuse treatment for you on that basis alone.

[MikeyBSN]

It's likely this law will be overturned by some activist judge. How dare the judicial system not let the legislators bully minority groups out of healthcare! After all, majority rules right? Constitution? What's that?

[Nickii36]

I can't believe in the United States that something like this could happen. I was under the impression that we were suppose to show compassion toward others no matter what religion they were and what they believed. I guess that means that if they are Christian or Catholic that we could refuse care to them also. But I guess since the Catholics and Christians are responsible for killing so many people over the years it doesn't suprise me at all. So what about the Constitution are they going to change it also. I myself would not go along with this law. There must be some kind of protest but then again we might loose our freedom of speech too.

[Hockeytown]

I can't believe in the United States that something like this could happen. I was under the impression that we were suppose to show compassion toward others no matter what religion they were and what they believed. I guess that means that if they are Christian or Catholic that we could refuse care to them also. But I guess since the Catholics and Christians are responsible for killing so many people over the years it doesn't suprise me at all. So what about the Constitution are they going to change it also. I myself would not go along with this law. There must be some kind of protest but then again we might loose our freedom of speech too.

This is the last time I will ever read or reply to anything from this web site. Who is monitoring these replies? I truly wonder how many people who responded to this topic are licensed heath care workers. This thread has gotten way out of hand and the ignorance is amazing. How many of you people who have replied live in Michigan? Those of who that do not have no clue what you are talking about. You think because you read some post on the internet it is 100% accurate. Like I said in my previous post, this bill has not changed the quality nor the administration of care to anyone! Now we have people posting disgusting comments that "Catholics and Christians are responsible for killing so many people over the years". Now that this thread has entered a new level of disgust it is time to put it to rest.

[Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN]

Like I said in my previous post, this bill has not changed the quality nor the administration of care to anyone!

The fact is, there could be possibilities of such happening in the future, from any state.