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

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
There is a magical saying that should be present in the minds of all who even consider refusing to treat a person that is Gay/Lesbian or any other preference and that phrase is simple:

GOD LOVES the SINNER but HATES the SIN.

Before anything else, medical practioners should consider the fact that they have taken an oath to preserve life, not to preserve a way of life or to go against the preference in someone's life. Before we treat a Gay/Lesbian/Straight person, let us remember that we are treating a human being that like anyone else that walks into a hospital deserves the right to live

Not to mention, how many of us are without sin.

GOD LOVES the SINNER but HATES the SIN.

There is a magical saying that should be present in the minds of all who even consider refusing to treat a person that is Gay/Lesbian or any other preference and that phrase is simple:

GOD LOVES the SINNER but HATES the SIN.

Before anything else, medical practioners should consider the fact that they have taken an oath to preserve life, not to preserve a way of life or to go against the preference in someone's life. Before we treat a Gay/Lesbian/Straight person, let us remember that we are treating a human being that like anyone else that walks into a hospital deserves the right to live.

What a shame it is that society at times can steep so low,

NURSE212

Specializes in Operating Room.

This is crazy. I can see one not wanting to treat pts with certain dz's: AIDS, Hep, etc, but saying they won't treat gays is going against the human.

Many of you may disagree with me on this one, and you have the right. :)

Afterall, there are many people out there that are bisexual, and you'd never know it. So how will these MD's get around this one? Say they are not going to treat anyone, and still want to get paid? :uhoh3:

I apparently have managed to move the question of the original post ...

Quickly, one of the HUGE organizations that wishes to impose it's will on a world is PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Are you unaware of Planned Parenthood's influence on the United Nations and their (UN) wish to overtly impose population control (that means getting into your bedroom) on your household?

Honestly, this is straying far from the percieved original intent of this writer and the post generating this discussion. If you hate Christians, God love you...you're free to do that. America allows you to do that - in very concerted and organized ways. Shouldn't Christians, know matter how much they are hated or their beliefs are hated, be allowed to congregate and legislate? Isn't that the thrust of the original post? Which brings me back to the thought that the "tolerant" seem most offended by, without explaining why, my expression and question - WHY IS IT WRONG TO DISAGREE WITH YOU? Christians accept they are going to be persecuted. Many have died for that belief (some who disagree with me would say 'not enough' ;) )

Seriously, why do you believe anyone should be morally forced to defend (which is what this law hopes to avert) a position they morally disagree with...opposers of this measure have hoped to couch this in terms of the good Samaritan parable - opposers have tried to couch this in terms of what's right and what's wrong...but I thought - in terms of moral relativism there is no right and no wrong - so how from what I can tell (from what's been posted) if the law is about MORAL freedom - can anyone supporting it, really be in the wrong? Who opposes moral freedom?

Specializes in 5 yrs OR, ASU Pre-Op 2 yr. ER.
This is crazy. I can see one not wanting to treat pts with certain dz's: AIDS, Hep, etc, but saying they won't treat gays is going against the human.

Hey, i can look at someone, and not know that they have AIDS or hep.

As someone said already, perhaps they shouldn't go into healthcare if they don't "want" to treat these pts. Selective care isn't an option when you chose to go into this field.

Specializes in 5 yrs OR, ASU Pre-Op 2 yr. ER.
Who opposes moral freedom?

I do, when people use it as an excuse not to provide the equal care they took an oath to do.

Specializes in Medical.
Quickly, one of the HUGE organizations that wishes to impose it's will on a world is PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Are you unaware of Planned Parenthood's influence on the United Nations and their (UN) wish to overtly impose population control (that means getting into your bedroom) on your household?

a) there's a difference between abortion and contraception

b) Planned Parenthood is not a lobby group for or on the UN

If you hate Christians, God love you...you're free to do that. America allows you to do that - in very concerted and organized ways. Shouldn't Christians, know matter how much they are hated or their beliefs are hated, be allowed to congregate and legislate?

a) dissent does not equal hatred

b) I wasn't aware of any measures being introduced to deny any particular group the right to congregate. Individual groups do not get to legislate - that's what elected officials are for

c) policy/legislation which expressly permits one group (in this case some physicians) to deny care to another group (in this case people identified as homosexual) is only discriminatory to Christians if it allows people to deny care to Christians, which isn't something I've seen proposed

WHY IS IT WRONG TO DISAGREE WITH YOU?

It's not. Disagree away - we live in a pluralist society. It is, however, wrong to discriminate against a group of people.

Seriously, why do you believe anyone should be morally forced to defend (which is what this law hopes to avert) a position they morally disagree with

If you read my post one page back (post #72), you'll see the analogy I made to rapists. I don't defend rapists, but neither do I believe thaty moral objection to rape allows me to deny the provision of care to rapists

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13224

I don't think it is about refusing a gay person the right to medical treatment but is about for example a catholic refusing to participate in an abortion. They are just giving people who have religious beliefs the right to refuse to participate in something that goes against their religious beliefs. We have all seen this argument before...

But the gay pt is not asking the doc to participate in sexual activity! They are asking for health care. What????

The catholic doc or nurse who refuses to work have anything to do with an abortion is not those same as docs/nurses refusing to take care of anyone who has ever had an abortion. That's way different.

I do suppose though that an attending can and should be permitted to refuse to accept anyone they choose as a regular pt. However, ER, house docs and the like should not have that choice.

This whole thing is just toooo weird.

I wonder if I can legally refuse to take care of drunks/drug addicts in Michigan because they are immoral people and I disagree with their lifestyle? How about single moms? While I'm at it I'll refuse to care for folks who steal cable or didn't pay their taxes. Martha Stewart better stay away from my unit....I tell ya. :uhoh21:

Why stop at gays?

I can't help it, it is just tooooo weird!

Where did that even come from? WOW!

Specializes in Med/Surg, Ortho.

I agree Boston1,, VA doesnt treat ME,I'm not a veteran, but they do treat veterans who are taxpayers and those who have actually earned the right to be treated with MY tax dollars.

But last i looked the VA wasnt religious based its government based. So that analogy doesnt work. I was speaking of religious based facilities.

Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

:banghead: There's at least one poster here, whose posts make my head hurt. My gay daughter sure isn't trying to convert me. Her "gayness" doesn't threaten my marriage one little bit. Her desire to have a committed relationship is a result of the lessons we taught her in our Protestant home.

There are times when you might think someone is gay, if you're into stereotyping, only to find out they're not. Then what? Big time lawsuit, I'd say.

+ Add a Comment