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

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

kevin's quote: "i wonder, would i be able to apply for employment at a clinic that provided abortions, then after hiring tell them of my moral objections? could i then force the clinic to continue to pay me to work there, even though i could not perform the duties for which i was hired? i don't see any protection in the bill that would prevent such an eventuality."

kevin - i don't think, from what i've read, that you would be able to do that.

a health care provider may assert his or herconscientious objection under any of the following conditions:

(a) upon being offered employment.

(b) at the time the health care provider adopts [an] ethical, moral, or religious belief system that conflicts with participation in a health care service.

© within 24 hours after he or she is asked or has received notice that he or she is scheduled to participate in a health care service to which he or she conscientiously objects.

************************

i think we already have the right to object on religious or other grounds.

this seems overkill to me.

steph

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Jesus turned no one away for a healing. Who are those docs to deny a human being care! :angryfire

Human kind has so distored the true teachings of Jesus. If you read about Jesus, he really didn't care about the "lifestyle" of those he associated with. It's the humans after he died that seem to care so much about such sings. In fact he didn't have much to say about "morality" at all, certainly didn't say one word about sexual lifestyle. But he certainly had a lot of harsh words for the so-called pious religious leaders of the time. Wonder what he would say today?

[URO-RN]

:offtopic: sorry,

Tweety,

Your sig quote made me laugh.:chuckle Too funny.:)

[irnwoody]

This is a great example of how chat rooms cause rumors to start and how the TWISTED LIBERAL MEDIA MAKE attacks on the sensibilities of the American public.

The only story here is How this news agency has gotten the uneducated to propogate their slanted story to coinside with their agenda to remove all thinking and freedom of choice from society. I think that's called socialism.

Nurses have always hyad the right to sign out of proceedures that went against their religious beliefs and this written right is being extended to physicians.

Now WHO wants to stand up and take away the rights of Pyhsicians?

[LydiaNN]

This is a great example of how chat rooms cause rumors to start and how the TWISTED LIBERAL MEDIA MAKE attacks on the sensibilities of the American public.

The only story here is How this news agency has gotten the uneducated to propogate their slanted story to coinside with their agenda to remove all thinking and freedom of choice from society. I think that's called socialism.

Nurses have always hyad the right to sign out of proceedures that went against their religious beliefs and this written right is being extended to physicians.

Now WHO wants to stand up and take away the rights of Pyhsicians?

Socialism??? Are you kidding? In a socialistic government, the press would never be given the freedom to propagate the type of bias of which you are accusing them. And btw, welcome to allnurses, brand new poster. You certainly chose a controversial thread to jump into for your first post. And a wordy post it was!

[KrisRNwannabe]

I watched several hours of the testimony on this bill and needless to say it was quite interesting. For the record in what I watched, very little mention of treating gays was made. the testimony was mostly about abortions and other procedures that docs or nurses would refuse. I am pretty sure some things were brought up about jehova witnesses and what they will and will not participate in. The biggest arguement brought up was about med schools. I forget who was giving the testimony (sorry but this was way over a year ago) but they were trying to say why should these doctors have to learn procedures that religiously they don't agree with. this went on for a very long time. The replubicans on the board were very harsh towards this person, and really didn't agree with anything they were trying to say. Someone representing the state nursing association was also present. they talked about how nurses could refuse procedures but not refuse to care for the patient. ie refuse to participate in the abortion but take care of the patient afterwards. The head of Beaumont Hospital (one of our majors) also spoke about how this has been implemented with the nurses in the hospital already and they have no problems make accomadations for religous purposes. and he also stated that this is norm in many hospitals in the state. it was very interesting to watch. most people i watched testify were for the bill very few against.

[jnette, ASN, EMT-I]

Human kind has so distored the true teachings of Jesus. If you read about Jesus, he really didn't care about the "lifestyle" of those he associated with. It's the humans after he died that seem to care so much about such sings. In fact he didn't have much to say about "morality" at all, certainly didn't say one word about sexual lifestyle. But he certainly had a lot of harsh words for the so-called pious religious leaders of the time. Wonder what he would say today?

"... that seem to care so much about such sings... "

You sound like my MOTHER !!! :rotfl:

" dese sings and dose sings and sings like dat !" :rotfl: :rotfl:

OKay.. back to topic... :)

Actually Tweety, He DID care about the morality of humans. Example was when He stepped in and protected Mary Magdalene from being stoned to death for her prostitution. While He did ask that those who have NOT sinned cast the first stone, He also did not imply that her "lifestyle" was acceptable. He told her to go and SIN no more. Remember?

That said, while it's true that He walked and dined with those of "unsavory" lifestyles.. the "sinners" ..(ALL of us).. it was to show He had understanding and compassion for ALL, and that ALL were to be encompassed and welcomed to hear His message... and that ALL could be changed by His love. Those who heard were touched by His message.. and their lives changed.

The pious remain in their dark blindness by choice to this day. :stone

[OC_An Khe]

Let's see, ther have been numerous articles where pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Are we going back to the days when BC of any form was illegal. The far right needs to bre prevented for doing this and be voted out of office. Don't have the link but there was an excellent editorial in the NY Times by Krugman today on this topic.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

:offtopic: sorry,

Tweety,

Your sig quote made me laugh.:chuckle Too funny.:)

Thanks!

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

[quote name=jnette

Actually Tweety, He DID care about the morality of humans......[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. Let me refocus to say, Jesus had nothing to say about sexual preference. It was the human writers afterwards, particularly in translations and interpretations 2000 years later, that claim He did. But I refuse to go there any further. :rotfl:

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

This is a great example of how chat rooms cause rumors to start and how the TWISTED LIBERAL MEDIA MAKE attacks on the sensibilities of the American public.

The only story here is How this news agency has gotten the uneducated to propogate their slanted story to coinside with their agenda to remove all thinking and freedom of choice from society. I think that's called socialism.

Nurses have always hyad the right to sign out of proceedures that went against their religious beliefs and this written right is being extended to physicians.

Now WHO wants to stand up and take away the rights of Pyhsicians?

Welcome! Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

I agree things can't get really twisted and jaded in the www, so I take things with a grain of salt.

I do take exception with your contention that liberal thinkers/media/writers want to take away thinking and freedom from society. I disagree with that idea.

[jnette, ASN, EMT-I]

Thanks for the clarification. Let me refocus to say, Jesus had nothing to say about sexual preference. It was the human writers afterwards, particularly in translations and interpretations 2000 years later, that claim He did. But I refuse to go there any further. :rotfl:

Fair enough, Tweets. :kiss :)