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

Anybody else suspect this bill has to do with protecting physicians who have been sued for some type of discrimination...that's the feel I get from it.

Specializes in Med-Surg, Trauma, Ortho, Neuro, Cardiac.
Anybody else suspect this bill has to do with protecting physicians who have been sued for some type of discrimination...that's the feel I get from it.

I think you might be correct. I suspect the bill goes a little deeper than allowing them to refuse to do an abortion, because that seems too simplistic.

Specializes in Research,Peds,Neuro,Psych,.

Not every Republican who voted for Bush agrees with such an outrageous thing. That is absurd!!!!!!!

I work in an HIV clinic...I guess if we refused to treat gay patients then we would be out of business. Not only that but morally reprehensible as well.

Specializes in cardiac ICU.
everything dumb, stupid cannot be laid at bush's doorstep..get real he is not a member of the michigan legislature

How about laying responsibility at the doorstep of KARL ROVE? Part of his strategy to reelect W was to get antigay measures on state ballots so that Bush's core supporters (who call themselves "Christians") would come out in droves to vote against gay rights. This measure passed in Michigan, and now the hardcore Christian right has been energized--they see this as a green light to put even more specific discriminatory measures into law.

I hate that Michigan voters approved this &$^%#*& law.

Specializes in ER (new), Respitory/Med Surg floor.
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?

I agree it's how people are using religion to substantiate issues when if you look at it is that really what was intended. I have issues with religion myself and it's not really specifically the religion at times but how people use it that just amazes me. REally the same fantacism you may see with arabs in the middle east can be said the same about some religions in the us. I mean i don't feel we are torturing anyone (sometimes) but I mean when it comes to the "moral" issues i feel some refuse to listen to all sides and feel my way is right because it's morally right and in a way with some issues that's a fanatic (look at the protestors and some of the supporters for the terri schiavo case, not all the people but a huge chunck because it's a human life are going NUTS over it and once again you disagree and you're against god please!)!

I just read this thread, and I can't believe what's happening in Michigan. :angryfire I guess now doctors will soon be allowed to not treat other groups they don't like, such as blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, or Jews, for instance. This is a shame. :o

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...

It's not the same. No one is asking all doctors to perform abortions or perform any type of treatment that goes against their moral or religious beliefs. The bill basically seems to just state that if they don't agree with their sexual orientation, they don't have to treat them for anything unless it's an emergency. So, if the doctor or health care provider doesn't like the way they live their life sexually, then they can turn their backs on them. What if all doctors have issues with the gay life style. Will all homosexuals be without primary care? They can only be seen when their problem becomes an emergancy? So in other words, they have an ailment but can't be treated until it becomes an emergency! If you don't have the desire to help all people no matter what their orientation or race, then don't pursue the healthcare field.

It's "Christian Conservatism" aka the Bush Administration and a highly Republican government.

I better add that I'm not saying ALL Christians.

.

Actually, Bush doesn't have anything against homosexuals. His only thing was the marriage issue. There was a tape recording of Bush that was released recently where Bush was saying basically that he was ok with gays but didn't know how the other Republicans would react to that. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's what he was saying. At any rate it was a positive for gays.

Doctors are a powerful influential lobby group. They are not just paid servants of the system....not in America. They want the right to refuse service to anyone of their choosing; without fear of retaliatory lawsuits.

Why are we surprised they are trying to establish legal protection against discrimination lawsuits?

Medical lawsuits result in higher medical costs so lawmakers have a vested interest in this issue. JMHO.

Specializes in ER (new), Respitory/Med Surg floor.
Actually, Bush doesn't have anything against homosexuals. His only thing was the marriage issue. There was a tape recording of Bush that was release recently where Bush was saying basically that he was ok with gays but didn't know how the other Republicans would react to that. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's what he was saying. At any rate it was a positive for gays.

Yes because many christians, not all, feel gays are wrong so either way he's catering to that view point for votes before and now republican support. And if that statement is true trying to cater to people who support gays or feel nothing wrong with lifestyle but maybe disagree with just marriage. That's been his scheme. Same with the schiavo case he supported although he's backing out realizing that people are mixed about the situation. All politicians do this which is why gay marriage was a main issue in the campaign rather than what really counted which is revolting. :angryfire

Specializes in 5 yrs OR, ASU Pre-Op 2 yr. ER.
Actually, Bush doesn't have anything against homosexuals. His only thing was the marriage issue. There was a tape recording of Bush that was released recently where Bush was saying basically that he was ok with gays but didn't know how the other Republicans would react to that. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's what he was saying. At any rate it was a positive for gays.

He has something against homosexuals. It's called 'same-sex marriage".

To me, that's not "positive", and what he's pretty much saying is "i have no problem with homosexuals, as long as they don't want the same things i have in life".

Specializes in ER (new), Respitory/Med Surg floor.
Doctors are a powerful influential lobby group. They are not just paid servants of the system....not in America. They want the right to refuse service to anyone of their choosing; without fear of retaliatory lawsuits.

Why are we surprised they are trying to establish legal protection against discrimination lawsuits?

Medical lawsuits result in higher medical costs so lawmakers have a vested interest in this issue. JMHO.

I know of one doctor we have an overwheight black nurse who I love but her repetoire with pt's can be rough but gets the important stuff done anyway this doctor will not talk to her. He asked about a pt and i said her nurse is right here loud so this nurse would here and he's wispering no and i repeated myself which was aful for the other nurse but i think somewhat used to it and she goes to me well he doesn't want to talk to me well you heard the man!

Anyway my father is a pt of his and applied for disability and the md said he's well supported for it and that he just can't stand and perceded to mention different races abuse it. I mean even if you have a view like that you do not shove it out to pts. He has not done anything outright so i'm not reporting him or anything like that but if he could refuse treatment would he refuse it to different races? That's crazy. The sad thing is he's a good doctor and not a bad guy except for this aspect. The was one issue he told a pt who was a professor of another professor who was DYING or not much long prognosis and retired next door and then the one professor walked over, SICK, into the other room and introduced herself to the pt's wife and pt and the pt is out of it! Our charge nurse took him aside and told him to never do that that was so wrong and i haven't seen anything like it but my goodness!

+ Add a Comment