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

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?

Do you honestly think "least reliable" condoms equates to "ineffective" condoms. In other words, are you saying that "least relibable" means 100% failure? You're essentially saying that the condoms Planned Parenthood gives out do not work at all. You also seem to be implying that Planned Parenthood's adgenda is to provide condoms that do not work in order to promote abortions. Do I have you all wrong?

I am neither Gay nor religious.

Anyone going into the Health Care field should be well informed about what they will face. Nobody forced you to get the education and go thru the training to care for PEOPLE.

I agree that nobody should be forced to do anything they are uncomfortable with.... that said, maybe you should find a job that won't have the possibility of encountering an uncomfortable activity. I'm becoming a NURSE to care for people... all people.

If I can't do that without judgement, then I should work in an industry that is NOT public oriented. I am going into this profession knowing that there will be people I disagree with on a number of issues. I am there to CARE for them not to JUDGE them.

I will even care for someone like Boston..... I may not agree with your point of view, lifestyle or with whom you choose to sleep. My only concern would be for your healthcare.... that IS the job.

What's next?? Health Care Providors and patients exchange resume's??:uhoh3:

I hope I never see the day.

Peace,

MaryRose

the posts, but it's degenerated into name calling and emotional pitying - and that wasn't my intention in engaging in the discussion. I thought "tolerant" people accepted differing views. I thought that was the general mantra of the movement. Clearly, the tone of this thread has become clouded with "intolerance". I hoped to be a part of interesting debate. Guess not, no biggie. It was interesting hearing some of the differing thoughts. Relativism can be such an exasperating and spiraling perspective. Thanks, again. Do Good.

the posts, but it's degenerated into name calling and emotional pitying - and that wasn't my intention in engaging in the discussion. I thought "tolerant" people accepted differing views. I thought that was the general mantra of the movement. Clearly, the tone of this thread has become clouded with "intolerance". I hoped to be a part of interesting debate. Guess not, no biggie. It was interesting hearing some of the differing thoughts. Relativism can be such an exasperating and spiraling perspective. Thanks, again. Do Good.

I think I am the only one who said that Docs should have the right to accept whomever and reject whomever they choose in their privat practice. It does become a legal/ethical issue when the Doc happens to be an ER or house doc. These docs must also be responsible for their contract with their hospital and not just their own practice.

I see no harm in a private physician choosing who he cares for or doesn't care for.

I still think it is just too weird but I am not the Doc able to make the choice. Who knows what choices I would make it I could choose. I don't think refusing to care for someone just because they are gay is likely to be one of my choices, but I can think of several "types" of people I would choose not to care for.

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...

I agree with you on this. It doesn't say anywhere it won't treat someone because they are gay.

Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.

How is treating a gay person going against religious beliefs? I just guess I am confused. It's not as if one is getting into bed with them in treating the common cold or a broken bone, etc. Someone enlighten me. Are there religious edicts out there that mandate we refuse to care medically for homosexual populations? I am unaware of them. Being Christian, I can only think about Christian examples and can't come up w/anything that says homosexuals should be excluded from our care. But I see the other side, too. Although I personally can't think of ONE reason I would want to refuse caring for gay people, I have a hard time stomaching helping one who is a child molester or rapist. I guess we all have the lines in our minds we must draw. But do we have that right to refuse? I am not so sure about that.

I'm confused.

Way back in like post #21 or so someone was kind enough to post a link to this bill. So I went up and read it.

Sec. 11.

(b) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to providing or participating in a health care service based on the classification of a patient or group of patients protected under the Elliot-Lorificen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to 37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.

So then I went and looked at the Elliot-Larson Act, which is the standard catch-all Act referenced in bills to ensure civil rights:

MICHIGAN ELLIOTT-LorificeN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976

AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

And then I took a peek at pending bills:

Michigan Senate Bill 0609, House Bill 4850 (Passage Pending)

Civil rights; general discrimination; disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression; include as categories protected under the Elliott-Lorificen civil rights act.

So why is this bill being characterized as being aimed at the homosexual community? Or any other people group? The only references made to specific issues that I read was to abortion and the morning-after pill. The bill came about after at least one nurse that I am aware of that was fired for refusing to administer the morning-after pill. The bill takes great care to stipulate that the conscientious objectors must give ample advanced warning of their objections and that patients be protected in emergency situations. It also protects employers in that it defines specific job areas where potentially objectionable duties constitute a majority of work responsibilities, implying that those jobs will be classified as unsuitable for conscious objectors.

OF COURSE Christian Groups lobbied for this bill - to protect Christian healthcare workers from being fired - NOT to advance an agenda for withholding treatment from ANY people group. To suggest otherwise is simply being provocative. Who else should have lobbied for it? Who else WOULD have lobbied for it? Disability Rights advocates lobby for bills to protect the disabled. Homosexual Rights advocates lobby for bills to protect the homosexual community. Etc. That is how the system works to protect us all.

Specializes in Med/Surg, Geriatrics.
I'm confused.

Way back in like post #21 or so someone was kind enough to post a link to this bill. So I went up and read it.

Sec. 11.

(b) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to providing or participating in a health care service based on the classification of a patient or group of patients protected under the Elliot-Lorificen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to 37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.

So then I went and looked at the Elliot-Larson Act, which is the standard catch-all Act referenced in bills to ensure civil rights:

MICHIGAN ELLIOTT-LorificeN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976

AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

And then I took a peek at pending bills:

Michigan Senate Bill 0609, House Bill 4850 (Passage Pending)

Civil rights; general discrimination; disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression; include as categories protected under the Elliott-Lorificen civil rights act.

So why is this bill being characterized as being aimed at the homosexual community? Or any other people group? The only references made to specific issues that I read was to abortion and the morning-after pill. The bill came about after at least one nurse that I am aware of that was fired for refusing to administer the morning-after pill. The bill takes great care to stipulate that the conscientious objectors must give ample advanced warning of their objections and that patients be protected in emergency situations. It also protects employers in that it defines specific job areas where potentially objectionable duties constitute a majority of work responsibilities, implying that those jobs will be classified as unsuitable for conscious objectors.

OF COURSE Christian Groups lobbied for this bill - to protect Christian healthcare workers from being fired - NOT to advance an agenda for withholding treatment from ANY people group. To suggest otherwise is simply being provocative. Who else should have lobbied for it? Who else WOULD have lobbied for it? Disability Rights advocates lobby for bills to protect the disabled. Homosexual Rights advocates lobby for bills to protect the homosexual community. Etc. That is how the system works to protect us all.

I did the same thing as yourself. I read the entire bill line by line and it appears that it was aimed at letting people off the hook from providing certain services not at excluding certain people. The confusion is because the bill made a point of stating that groups protected under the Elliot Lorificen Civil Rights Act of 1976 may not be discriminated against and that act does NOT include homosexuals. I guess if it were left to interpretation, it could be stated that there is no explicit protection for homosexuals from discrimination and I think that is a valid concern. Religious radicals have made no secret of their disdain for gays as a group and it is not such a stretch to think that those people would try to use this law to deny care to homosexuals. Bigots tend to be a crafty and wily group.

One comment, you mention an amendment to the Elliot Lorificen Act as pending. Well I went all over the website of the Michigan Legislature and I could not find those bills anywhere. So in its current form, the bill in question does not really offer gays protection from discrimination although it does not explicitly state that healthcare providers have the right to deny them care.

I can't seem to figure the hyperlinks out, but here are the links to the

bills to ammend:

Michigan Senate Bill 0609

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-SB-0609

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 7/3/2003

Michigan House Bill 4850

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4850

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 6/17/2003

Oh! OK, the hyperlinks are created automatically. Kewl.

Specializes in Med/Surg, Geriatrics.
I can't seem to figure the hyperlinks out, but here are the links to the

bills to ammend:

Michigan Senate Bill 0609

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-SB-0609

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 7/3/2003

Michigan House Bill 4850

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4850

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY 6/17/2003

So they never got out of committe and apparently they have not been taken up again. HOW sad....

I thought as nurses we were to treat people with equality and dignity, irrespective of race, sex, oreintation? I dont think this would pass in the uk, if we refused to treat a patient because of the mention, I am sure the NMC would pull us up for breaking our code of professional conduct.

Also if these people are refusing to treat people because of religious reasons, I think they should maybe look at the biblical story of the Samaritan!

So tell me are Michigan homosexuals branded at birth? Just so the doctors know !

So do you think I would get away with not treating a hetrosexual on religious grounds? Its a total forifice.....the religious right rearing it theocentric head again.

Who's going to treat the homosexual nurses? Its a shame Christians portray such a horrible image of Christ. I am sure he would have been the first to treat a homosexual, his homosexual neighbour.

Fejao x

+ Add a Comment