Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

Nurses Activism

Published

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

Proabortion and prohomosexual groups are incessantly trying to force their beliefs on Catholics and other Christians. Why do they and they're apologists consider it wrong for others to stand up for their own rights of a free conscience? It seems to me the most intolerant groups are the ones that preach the "tolerance virtue" the loudest. I'd like to read more about the legislation and the thoughts of those who favor it. The thoughts of those who oppose it will be well covered in the mainstream media.

Specializes in Public Health, DEI.
Proabortion and prohomosexual groups are incessantly trying to force their beliefs on Catholics and other Christians. Why do they and they're apologists consider it wrong for others to stand up for their own rights of a free conscience? It seems to me the most intolerant groups are the ones that preach the "tolerance virtue" the loudest. I'd like to read more about the legislation and the thoughts of those who favor it. The thoughts of those who oppose it will be well covered in the mainstream media.

Right. Not.

Specializes in Clinical Research, Outpt Women's Health.

This is just totally wrong -how can this happen in this day and age? Sad, sad, sad. What can we do?

Specializes in Med/Surg, Ortho.

See this is why i have a problem with religion being a profitable business. Although its supposed to be Non-profit (ya right,,). OK now dont slam me, but most religious based hospitals are completely tax exempt correct (including sales taxes in most places)? Separation of church and state, non-profit, thats all that means anyway. But, they can recieve government grants/medicare payments etc, use our state and local departments to accredit and inspect their facilities, but they dont pay taxes into the system they take out of. Last i knew most everyone that might use one of our tax exempt facilities PAY taxes of one type or another. So as a question, how is it they can refuse treatment to tax paying citizens of whom they are taking money out of their pockets to support their facilities? See the double standard here,, they can take my tax monies,, but can refuse to treat ME? There is something really wrong here. And yes i see the same problem where, religious based colleges, and other "businesses" are concerned too. Dont get me wrong, im not saying they dont do great work and arent needed, but when you talk about this legistlation i think it bears consideration.

Every VA hospital takes tax money from taxpayers but refuses treatment to most taxpayers.

See this is why i have a problem with religion being a profitable business. Although its supposed to be Non-profit (ya right,,). OK now dont slam me, but most religious based hospitals are completely tax exempt correct (including sales taxes in most places)? Separation of church and state, non-profit, thats all that means anyway. But, they can recieve government grants/medicare payments etc, use our state and local departments to accredit and inspect their facilities, but they dont pay taxes into the system they take out of. Last i knew most everyone that might use one of our tax exempt facilities PAY taxes of one type or another. So as a question, how is it they can refuse treatment to tax paying citizens of whom they are taking money out of their pockets to support their facilities? See the double standard here,, they can take my tax monies,, but can refuse to treat ME? There is something really wrong here. And yes i see the same problem where, religious based colleges, and other "businesses" are concerned too. Dont get me wrong, im not saying they dont do great work and arent needed, but when you talk about this legistlation i think it bears consideration.

respect, you've not discredited my post. In fact, you've supported it! The tact of the most intolerant is to pretend the "fallacy" of those that disagree with them is self-evident. Yet, they reject self-evidence (i.e. that which appears "normal") as proof of the weakness of their own tenets. If you want to discredit my comments, take a real a shot. God bless you and always do Good. Boston1

Right. Not.

Boston1,

I have never tried to force my sexual orientation on anyone. I live my life everyday and I do think that the religeous groups should be able to refuse care to anyone other than violent people.

Chad

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
Proabortion and prohomosexual groups are incessantly trying to force their beliefs on Catholics and other Christians. Why do they and they're apologists consider it wrong for others to stand up for their own rights of a free conscience?

My problem is with those evil despicable heterosexuals. They get special rights and tax breaks and use up all the valuable worldly resources for these disgusting children that they insist on having....products of their own immoral lifestyles. Why do they have to force their disgraceful ways on us, by KISSING in public and bringing their children out with them, flaunting themselves? And they are always trying to push this proheterosexual agenda and force us to support their terrible lifestyle.

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

************Trying hard not to laugh and wondering how many will take me seriously*********

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
Boston1,

I have never tried to force my sexual orientation on anyone. I live my life everyday and I do think that the religeous groups should be able to refuse care to anyone other than violent people.

Am I reading correctly....religious groups should be required to care for violent people?

Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED.

Minority religous veiws should not be imposed upon others. So you of the Christian faiths please don't try and impose your veiws, by law. Our founding fathers recognized the dangers of this. Please let's not repeat the worst parts of European history in this country.

I speak very respectfully and sincerely to you. I applaud that you respect the right of anyone to refuse the right to care to another. Isn't that at the very base of the "pro-choice" movement? I know several people (mostly men) that believe themselves to be homosexual. None of them call themselves "gay", because none of them call themselves "happy". There is a movement, and to be honest with you you'd be naive to believe otherwise, within the "gay" and radical "membership" of homosexuals that savor nothing more, on a daily basis, than a confrontation with Christians. Why? You know why...honest homosexuals and honest Christians know why.

There is an interesting caveat to your post to which I'll add emphasis for reasons which will become obvious "...I do think that the religious groups should be able to refuse care to anyone other than VIOLENT PEOPLE..."

I wonder how many homosexuals that suffer silently (as I believe you wish to present yourself - I may be wrong - and as EVERY homosexual I've met does) - really recognize the Christian persecution by RADICAL homosexuals as a similar battle they face? A VIOLENT onslaught by VIOLENT PEOPLE. I wonder how many RADICAL homosexuals recognize that wish to bash Christians wish to do so with the same hatred they perceive Christians wish bash them.

Let's be honest, Chad, if you think the life of homosexuality is a pleasing way of life - that's your choice, but at the same dance if you ask me to waltz with you, aren't I allowed to say "no".?

Many RADICAL homosexuals, and I don't believe you're one (I think you just want to live your life - and hope everyday, if there's an afterlife, you do alright in the end) think it's offensive for anyone to say "I don't want to dance with you". Sometimes in life, people keep walking, no matter how much you're hurting. It always feels wrong when you're the one that's hurting. Does that always mean it always is wrong?

Chad, you've said you've "never tried to force my sexual orientation on anyone". I'm being honest with you - most homosexuals (I'm assuming that's where you're at - for reasonable conjecture) I've met don't care that anyone knows ... however, there is a RADICAL movement of homosexuals that wants to impose their beliefs on everyone, would you agree? It is to those that want to condemn this kind of legislation that I addressed my post. God bless, do Good. :)

I have never tried to force my sexual orientation on anyone. I live my life everyday and I do think that the religeous groups should be able to refuse care to anyone other than violent people.

Chad

Specializes in Medical.
Proabortion and prohomosexual groups are incessantly trying to force their beliefs on Catholics and other Christians. Why do they and they're apologists consider it wrong for others to stand up for their own rights of a free conscience? It seems to me the most intolerant groups are the ones that preach the "tolerance virtue" the loudest. I'd like to read more about the legislation and the thoughts of those who favor it. The thoughts of those who oppose it will be well covered in the mainstream media.

The terms 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-homosexual' make it sound as though there's a group of people trying to make people have abortions or change their sexual orientation, in this case 'Catholics and other Christians'.

The central tenet of their ideology is, as you point out, tolerance - the idea that we don't all have to be the same to get along together. This means that nobody has any objection to you not having an abortion, or you being heterosexual.

The key difference between this legislation and existing conscientious objection legislation is that performing an abortion (or hanging blood) is an event, with a begining, duration and end. A health care provider can abstain from being involved with abortion procedures, hanging blood, or (I guess) administering porcine insulin.

A persons' sexual identity is not confined to a timeframe. It is. To use the above analogies, applying conscientious objector status here would mean that my beliefs as a Christian (that abortion is the taking of a human life and therefore contravenes the word of God) allowed me to deny care to anyone who has had an abortion. That my beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness (that receiving blood products contravenes the word of God) allowed me to deny care to anyone who has received blood. That my beliefs as a Jew or Muslim (that consuming the flesh of unclean animals contravenes the word of God) allowed me to deny care to anyone who has diabetes and uses/used porrcine insulin. Even if this sinful (according to my beliefs) activity is unrelated to their reason for admission.

I have a moral objection to rape. I think rapists are vile, and sinful. I do not like them. The idea of them makes me angry, and queasy, and afraid.

However, I do not think that providing essential care (including non-emergency care) is tantamount to endorcing rape. I do not think that my beliefs mean that I can refuse to provide care to a rapist. I won't like it, I will not enjoy it, and I will not be friendly. But I will provide the same basic care as I would to any other patient.

* Please note that the example of a rapist is used because I have the same repugnance for rape as I believe many conservatives have to the idea of abortion and/or homosexuality. It is not meant to imply any omparision between rape and any sexual practice between consenting adults. Thank you.*

+ Add a Comment