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

[pickledpepperRN]

I am Catholic. I will not participate in an abortion. If I were an obstetrical or surgical nurse I would have to make that clear before accepting a position or work at a Catholic hospital.

I will and have cared for people who have had an abortion. Even years ago young women who were septic or hemorrhaging after an illegal abortion were admitted to my unit. It was easy to provide kind nursing care to them. It is my responsibility as a nurse.

Did you take this pledge?

The Nightingale Pledge

I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly to faithfully practice my profession of nursing. I will do all in my power to make and maintain the highest standards and practices of my profession.

I will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping in the practice of my calling. I will assist the physician in his work and will devote myself to the welfare of my patients, my family, and my community.

I will endeavor to fulfill my rights and privileges as a good citizen and take my share of responsibility in promoting the health and welfare of the community.

I will constantly endeavor to increase my knowledge and skills in nursing and to use them wisely.

I will zealously seek to nurse those who are ill wherever they may be and whenever they are in need.

I will be active in assisting others in safeguarding and promoting the health and happiness of mankind."

For Christians, I remind you that the "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" incident is one of the most well-known lessons of the Bible. A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery, was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God.

In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites.

He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone."

He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin

[Boston1]

Hi Talaxandra,

I simply don't have the time to write a thesis here on Planned Parenthood and their agenda that is well documented dating back to the 1930's. Planned Parenthood is without question the number 1 provider of condoms in North America. They also provide, according to Consumer Reports, the "least reliable" condoms on the market to their clients. Additionally, they are the number 1 provider of abortions in North America - think there's any link between providing ineffective condoms and abortions?

As to the connection between Planned Parenthood and the UN and efforts to control world population - extremely well documented. I have no doubt you know how to do an internet search.

As to the willingness of Pro-Aborts in thier zeal to deny care, put people out of work, and close down Christian charity centers, I'd suggest you investigate the case against Catholic Charities USA in California.

Regarding rape - should the innocent baby be killed?

We are way off the topic of the original post - but really maybe not so much.

Planned Parenthood asserts their "right" to protect rapists if it means garnering an abortion $ for their office, you don't agree with that protection do you?

Let's not paint the supporters of this legislation unfairly unless we're willing to shine a BRIGHT light on its opposition. I think that's fair, don't you?

Have a great one :)

a) there's a difference between abortion and contraception

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

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

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

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

[Boston1]

in the VA system...tell me if you feel the same. :)

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.

[hollyster]

Are we going to start labeling everyone and go back to the horror of the Holocaust?

Will Gay or Lesbian people be made to wear letters or symbols on their clothing or will they be tattooed on their foreheads? What group will they deny care to next?

What is truly scary is that these are supposed to be educated individuals and were elected to represent all their constituents not just the groups they agree with.

I am shocked that the Republicans, who fought so hard to get medical care reinstated for Terri Schiavo are trying to deny medical care for a group of people because of their sexual orientation.

[Chad_KY_SRNA]

:yeahthat:

[Boston1]

but they were blocked by those who claim to care for individual rights, weren't they?

Are we going to start labeling everyone and go back to the horror of the Holocaust?

Will Gay or Lesbian people be made to wear letters or symbols on their clothing or will they be tattooed on their foreheads? What group will they deny care to next?

What is truly scary is that these are supposed to be educated individuals and were elected to represent all their constituents not just the groups they agree with.

I am shocked that the Republicans, who fought so hard to get medical care reinstated for Terri Schiavo are trying to deny medical care for a group of people because of their sexual orientation.

[caroladybelle, BSN, RN]

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?

As does the Catholic Church. It also is making its way into the bedrooms of nonCatholics by legislating birth control or rather the trying to ban its use.

[Roy Fokker, BSN, RN]

A funny thought just struck me.

I'm kinda sure that back in the old days, noone was turned away from healthcare.

Even when said healthcare was provided by religious institutions.

The idea that was prevelent was that healthcare is bassically a non-judgemental, serve-all-who come field.

I just think this is an idiotic law.

However, I question the need for such a law. We have had this type of conversation before. Most of us recognize that we have a right not to participate in the procedure itself. The solution to the problem is simple. For physicians, they simply do not have to offer the procedure. For nurses, we simply need not seek employment at facilities or in units that provide the procedure we find objectionable. At the same time, I have found on this board, at least, a universal agreement that we would have no right to refuse to provide care to a person who has had the procedure. So, while I might have the right not to participate in an abortion as a CRNA, I do not see my right extending to not providing anesthesia care to a patient who has had an abortion with complications and therefore now needs surgery.

What troubles me the most about this law is not that it provides protection for health care workers with moral objections to procedures, it provides the same protections to workers who object to lifestyles, and it goes far beyond the question of the "gay lifestyle." Were I racist, I could claim moral objections to interracial marriage, and refuse to treat patients in such marriages, and be protected by this bill.

This is another symptom of the undue sway and influence the ultra-right religious members of our society have gained to our government. I'm pretty conservative (surprise) and find this bill to be heinous on every level.

Well said Sir!

[goodknight]

A health care provider may object as a matter

of conscience to providing or participating in a health care service on ethical, moral, or religious grounds.

(2) A health care provider shall notify his or her employer

in writing of a conscientious objection described in subsection

1 (1). The written notice shall be given directly to his or her supervisor and shall include a statement explaining his or her conscientious objection and the health care service or services to which he or she specifically objects to providing or participating in under this act.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to me to read that a healthcare provider can refuse to participate in a SPECIFIC treatment/act/care, not just a patient they don't 'agree' with. Ex. not participating in abortion. NOT that they can refuse to treat the patient all together, just the one treatment. I'm also not reading this law to say that you can not treat based on the patient's beliefs, but on yours.

I don't see that this would be horrible (if i'm reading it right). Surely we don't want to become a society that forces its healthcare providers to do something against their concientious beliefs. We all have the right to believe what we want and live in harmony with that. That's why this country was founded. But I don't think we neccessarily need this law to do that. It makes it too easy to refuse to treat at all.

That said we still have the responsibility to try and avoid situations that we couldn't participate in (abortion clinic, Catholic nurse), but if it is still a possibility to face that kind of situation the healthcare provider needs to be responsible and plan for it. Make arrangements of what will happen, who will provide the treatment, ect.

[LydiaNN]

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

Not necessary. I feel like what you said isn't right. Was I not clear?

[hollyster]

but they were blocked by those who claim to care for individual rights, weren't they?

No, those are called Libertarians.

It saddens that such narrow mindedness still exists. We are all humans, no matter who you sleep with (as long as they are over 18 and consent willingly)

or pray to (if you pray.) This legislation will only make individuals become more secretive so that they are not shunned. How sad that someone who is committing no crime could be denied healthcare but criminals are given every healthcare advantage. I worry about people who cannot accept life choices that differ from their own.

What group will be denied care next???

[Soleilpie]

A health care provider may object as a matter

of conscience to providing or participating in a health care service on ethical, moral, or religious grounds.

(2) A health care provider shall notify his or her employer

in writing of a conscientious objection described in subsection

1 (1). The written notice shall be given directly to his or hersupervisor and shall include a statement explaining his or her conscientious objection and the health care service or services to which he or she specifically objects to providing or participating in under this act.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to me to read that a healthcare provider can refuse to participate in a SPECIFIC treatment/act/care, not just a patient they don't 'agree' with. Ex. not participating in abortion. NOT that they can refuse to treat the patient all together, just the one treatment. I'm also not reading this law to say that you can not treat based on the patient's beliefs, but on yours.

I don't see that this would be horrible (if i'm reading it right). Surely we don't want to become a society that forces its healthcare providers to do something against their concientious beliefs. We all have the right to believe what we want and live in harmony with that. That's why this country was founded. But I don't think we neccessarily need this law to do that. It makes it too easy to refuse to treat at all.

That said we still have the responsibility to try and avoid situations that we couldn't participate in (abortion clinic, Catholic nurse), but if it is still a possibility to face that kind of situation the healthcare provider needs to be responsible and plan for it. Make arrangements of what will happen, who will provide the treatment, ect.

The definition of "health care service" according to the House Bill includes more than just performing a procedure. It includes "medical diagnosis, treatment, diagnositic test, device, medication, drug or other substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of an individual." So this bill seems allow a health care professional to go beyond refusing to perform a procedure but to also be able to refuse to treat, diagnose or provide medciation if it somehow goes against their beliefs. I'm afraid this bill leaves a lot of room for abuse to occur.