posted on May 17, 2004 12:10:29 AM new
What ever happened to equal treatment under the law?
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
April 21, 2004
Lansing, Michigan) 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.
posted on May 17, 2004 01:21:02 AM new
I disagree it's a sick law. They should not be in a position where they are FORCED to do procedures that are against their religious beliefs.
-----------------
April 22, 2004, 7:06 AM EDT
LANSING, Mich. -- The state House has voted to protect health care workers and insurers from being fired or sued for refusing to perform a procedure, fill a prescription or cover treatment for something they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons.
The law would apply to doctors or nurses who decline to perform or assist with abortions and to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills.
The main bill in the package would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act. It would allow +health+ care providers to assert an objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a procedure with which they do not agree.
However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
The House voted 69-35 to approve the bill.
The other three bills, which were approved by similar margins, 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.
The bill does not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.
Democratic Rep. Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing failed to win enough support for an amendment to the main bill that would have prohibited +health+ care professionals from refusing to provide emergency contraception.
It failed on a 34-68 vote.
Republican Rep. Randy Richardville of Monroe, who introduced the main bill of the package, said the legislation is intended to protect religious, moral and ethical freedoms of +health+ care providers.
"Nothing in this bill, not a thing, denies a patient from receiving medical care," he said. "This simply means a medical professional cannot violate their religious obligations."
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.
The conscientious objector bills are House Bill 5006 and 5276-78.
----------------------
People of faith, and especially religious hospitals, etc should not be forced to practice medicine when those same practices violate their religious beliefs or morals.
posted on May 17, 2004 01:28:25 AM new
Anyone wanting to read the measure, as passed, here's the link....
maybe ?? a warning is needed to those who find prayer offensive, especially in a government assembly....as an invocation was offered in the House and is at the beginning of this document.
posted on May 17, 2004 01:33:25 AM new
OK, take a deep breath. When one looks up the allegation, one finds that the title "Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays " is not true.
Michigan House Bill No. 5006 makes no mention of homosexuals.
It's focus is to allow health care workers to refuse to participate in birth control and contraceptives, or other medical procedures they object to on moral, ethical or religious reasons, except in medical emergencies.
Could this "objection" someday be expandedtoinclude homosexuals? Possibly. Same for Catholics, Jews, blacks, etc. It is certainly a slippery slope that Michigan is poised upon.
But I object to outright lying about the purpose of the bill. I would guess that you got your article & its title from ablog or website run by a homosexual individual or organization. They recurrently in a "sky is falling" uproar over this bill and what it might lead to for their community in the future. No legitimate news source has come out with this.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 17, 2004 01:40:03 AM new
You mean that we should all from now on be able to decide when we will and won't performing the jobs we are paid to perform? You feel that it is fine to pay state hospital employees to work whenever they damn well please?
You have got to be kidding me Linda. Does this mean that hospitals have to start staffing according to political and religious affiliations to make sure that there is at least one person working that is willing to help a patient?
If you have a moral objection to providing health care and feel that you have the right to judge who is worthy of your care and who is not... then get the hell out of medicine.
I have to say Linda - in a week that started with some rahter strange statements - you ended with a real bang. Endorsing discriminatory health care and insurance coverage. Disgusting.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 17, 2004 01:50:44 AM new
Well fenix - I find those who have forced pre-med students to preform abortions or not be able to practice medicine disgusting.
I find it disgusting that some think they have the right to tell a Catholic hospital they have to perform abortions or they have to do tubal ligations, etc. when that is against their religious beliefs.
I worked with doctors and the majority didn't want to perform abortions, but the ultra-liberals have continued to push and push until some who don't share those same religious/moral/ethic positions have had to resort to this kind of legislation.
What I find amazing is that liberals fully support CO when it comes to what there against....but don't think others should be allowed the same 'right's.
posted on May 17, 2004 02:00:05 AM new
Bunni - What happens when a few scrub nurses decide that they have moral objections to various religions? Then there is that pesky anesthesiologist who is morally opposed to republicans. Oh yeah, and after careful consideration, your insurance company decides that they have ethical issues with any invasive surgery proceedures on persons over the age of 50 because of over population and so rewrite their mission statement. Now they no longer cover it andyou can't sue them for their change of heart.
Sorry - Michigan lawmakers threw the baby out with the bathwater. Of coure my favorite part of this is that rape victims can be denied the morning after pill depending on the moral views of the attending. There is a truly disgusting thought for you. Because rape just is not bad enough, Michigans lawmakers feel that it's perfectly fine to put the victim thru the further fears of pregnancy and dealing with that issue based soley on the moral opinion of a disinterested third party.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 17, 2004 02:00 AM ]
posted on May 17, 2004 02:07:10 AM new
As I stated, Michigan is poised on a slippery slope. It may very well lead to all sorts of circumstances, including the one you mention, that will lead to the state re-examining the bill altogether.
Do I approve of the bill? No. But it is a fact that it is not aimed at homosexuals, as was intimated in the original post. I really dislike it when things are twisted like that.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 17, 2004 02:16:22 AM new
Tell you what Linda - why don't you point out which part is incorrect? We have the ability to refuse on moral, ethical or religious grounds and and inabilty to garner support for an ammendment forbidding the refusal of emergency contraceptives.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 17, 2004 02:25:17 AM new
fenix - Every link on the internet says the same thing....
THE "CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR POLICY ACT" STATES THAT HEALTH CARE WORKERS CAN REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE FOR MORAL, ETHICAL OR RELIGIOUS REASONS, ALTHOUGH THE MEASURE WOULD PROHIBIT THE REFUSAL OF EMERGENCY CARE.
posted on May 17, 2004 02:39:36 AM new
I wanted to address another question you asked too, fenix.
Does this mean that hospitals have to start staffing according to political and religious affiliations to make sure that there is at least one person working that is willing to help a patient?
When I worked at that HMO in the early 90's staff scheduling was already being done in this fashion. Doctors who were willing to do abortions were put on a rotation list. Doctors that were willing to do later term abortions on a different rotation list. Doctors that weren't willing to do abortions were not FORCED to do that. Same with the nursing and medical assistants.
That's part of what's been changing....that's part of what this 'rebellion' is all about.
And the same thing applied to the support medical staff - all the way down to clerical workers. When looking to take a job opening...one was asked if they had any objection to abortions.....if they did...they were not considered for that job opening.
As it should continue to be, imo. But this continue forcing of the unwilling has gotten out of hand. And if it continues I believe we will start seeing more of this type of legislation being passed.
Even back in the late 60's when I was delivering my sons....all knew you didn't go to deliver your baby at a Catholic hospital IF you wanted your tubes tied following the birth. You just chose to go to a hosptial that didn't have those same rules.
posted on May 17, 2004 02:59:41 AM new
Linda - I read that hon, no need to shout and my literacy skills are such that bolding is also uneccessary when addressing me. I can ready enitre sentences and interpret them all by myself without your help.
What aspect of my scenerios did you feel that your statement was contradicting?
As for you rotation and single minded focus on abortion - that is not what the law addresses now is it? It states medical procedures not abortions. I realised that you and the lawmakers are obsessed with that issue, but they forgot to clarify it in the law so now do you start asking all applicants if there is anything or anybody they have a moral objection to and if so, what happens the first time someone does not get a job after they inform the interviewer they are anti-semetic and would prefer not to perform duties on jewish patients. Are we then opening state run instituotions up to discrimination suits based no non hiring due to religious beliefs?
Are you beginning to get a gist of the larger picture and the stupidity of this law?
And can't we all at least agree that no person has the right to force an unwanted pregnancy on rape victim?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 17, 2004 03:12:53 AM new
fenix - That wasn't me typing in capitals....it was just the first google search that came up that I copied and pasted.
But I don't agree that anyone should be forced to do anything that is against their morals/ethics/or religion. Nor be fired from a job because the 'rules' have changed in mid-stream. Period.
There are protections in our laws against any descrimination that might come about and they will have the right to file lawsuits. But there MUST be a balance to the 'rights' of all people, not just the liberal minded.
For you to say if they don't want to treat everyone and do every procedure they find objectionable or else they should just get out of the medical field.... only supports the views of those, like myself, who have commented on the non-religious working to removing the constitutional right of people to practice their religion/beliefs/faith.
And this law really doesn't just apply to the religious....there were many docs I worked with who weren't religious and didn't believe in some of these same procedures for different reasons.
posted on May 17, 2004 04:10:27 AM new
Wow, Linda, your really come off sounding like a bigot in this one. A lot of these doctors got some of their education paid for with our tax dollars. State and county hospitals get paid with our tax dollars. They should not be allowed to pick and choose who they are going to treat. Some doctors already pick and choose using insurance companies. My daughter and granddaughter have CareSource because we don't offer insurance at work. Do you understand how hard it is for her to find a decent doctor to treat my granddaughter? They hear CareSource and think welfare and she's not on welfare.
For the past 4 years, this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. I hate to inform you, but Puritan times are over and have been for a long, long, time. It sounds like some of you want to go back to witch burning. I am sick to death of people hiding behind religion in order to keep the bigotry in this country alive and that goes for the man sitting in the white house. God help all of you when your judgement day comes.
posted on May 17, 2004 05:08:52 AM newThey should not be allowed to pick and choose who they are going to treat. Some doctors already pick and choose using insurance companies.
To me that statement sounds further left than socialism, cheryl. And like they've gone into/been forced into public servitude according to you.
They've always been allowed to treat who they want....be affiliated with whatever hospitals they wish to be....refuse to do procedures they don't wish to do. UNTIL you lefties started shoving this crap down their throats.....now they're objection...and getting laws passed to stop it.
Start pushing those as laws and you'll hear even more doctors tell you where to get off. Not just the one's that have moral/ethical objections to being forced to do certain procedures.
editing to add: and they've always been free to choose which insurance companies they wish to be affiliated with too.
posted on May 17, 2004 05:26:17 AM new
I'm not talking about "procedures", Linda. I'm talking about picking and choosing what people they are going to treat. So, in your opinion, someone who's gay doesn't deserve medical treatment? My granddaughter deserves sub-standard treatment because she gets insurance from the state? Get off the self-righteous band wagon, Linda. By November, that wagon won't be rolling anymore. The Bibles says "love thy neighbor". Not "love thy neighbor unless he's black, gay, hispanic, middle eastern." That's one thing we liberal lefties have over self-righteous righties. . .we care more about the human race as a whole. And that includes, gays, blacks, hispanics and middle easterners! If you were in a predominately gay neighborhood and had a heart attack and the nearest doctor was gay AND he refused to treat you because you were straight, what would you be crying then?
Edited to add: Free to choose which insurance companies? Try telling the poor that. What a joke!
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on May 17, 2004 05:26 AM ]
This bill was written by bigots, passed by bigots and is now being defended by bigots. Intolerance of people based on religion, race or sexual orientation is unconscionable and is especially abhorrent when it concerns limiting medical care
posted on May 17, 2004 05:54:40 AM new
cheryl - In another thread you stated you don't understand why people get in other peoples business...and that what they do behind closed doors should be their own business.
But then you turn right around and say a doctor should now not have the right to not see or perform any procedure that he/she doesn't want to. And they shouldn't have a choice of which insurance companies they wish to affiliate themselves with.
Do you not see a double standard in that? Boy, I sure do.
-----
I'm talking about picking and choosing what people they are going to treat.
So was I in my above post. My husband wanted a vasectomy and went to a urologist who refused to do one....on the grounds that he was 33 and hadn't had a child himself yet. He woudn't do it....so we found another doctor who would. Simply solution. There are plenty of doctors out that that won't do certain procedures for all sorts of personal reasons. Their right. You going to file a lawsuit against this doctor if it had happened to you? You going to FORCE him to do this procedure against his will? Most wouldn't....they'd just move on.
So, in your opinion, someone who's gay doesn't deserve medical treatment?
Want to point out to me where this law says anything about gay's not deserving medical treatment? It doesn't....and don't put words in my mouth.
My granddaughter deserves sub-standard treatment because she gets insurance from the state?
This is your support for FORCING doctors to become affilitated with ALL the insurance companies?
Get off the self-righteous band wagon, Linda.
Let's see....self-righteous to the socialist supporter means having a different opinion.
This bill is because the elected officials passed it....believe it or not Bush doesn't have one vote in their state. And I'd go so far as to bet that even with a kerry presidency there'd STILL be voters/elected officials in Michigan who support this protection.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:29:46 AM new
My tolerance is legendary, linda. I support all people, regardless of their country of origin, religion or sexual orientation. The fact that I personally have no beliefs based in organized religion does not mean that I don't respect those who do subscribe to such beliefs. By questioning my tolerance you are ignorantly referring to my opposition to the right-wing effort to blur the separation of church and state as lack of tolerance.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:43:59 AM new
Oh....so then helen you DO support the right of doctors/hospitals etc. to not be forced to treat or do procedures that are against their religious/moral/ethical beliefs, huh??? Somehow I seriously doubt that. haha
Your intolerance of those of faith has been expressed many times. You're fooling no one but yourself.
posted on May 17, 2004 06:49:33 AM new
I think we should all give you a blank page today upon which you can post your screwy ideas. Or maybe you would like to get some sleep? I'll be working on a new camera set up today.
posted on May 17, 2004 08:34:09 AM new
Linda - again I ask which aspect of my scenerios was incorrect? See the problem here is that you are viewing this law thru a anti-abortion tunnel. You have completely ignored the fact that this law does not specifify a procedure. It is wide open, It just gives them the right to refuse anything they are morally, ethically or religiously opposed to. So when the first head nurse decides it is against her moral opinions to care for black in a Detroit hospital, or doctor decides that low income kids don'tdeserve organ transplants, or a radiologist decides mamographies ar wasted on athiests ... how much support are you oing to be throwing behind them? You can't just have the one aspect that you personally like about the law, hoist it far above and throw a parade while ignoring therest of it Linda. You have to look at the full conotations of the bill and decide it's worth.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 17, 2004 08:46:39 AM newThey should not be in a position where they are FORCED to do procedures that are against their religious beliefs.
They should be when they practice under a public license and education system. If they refuse on non-medical grounds they should lose their licenses.
It is also the case that they could have chosen another profession if their morals prohibit the practice of legal medical procedures.
The definition of "professional" was put best by a Yale trained theological professor I was priveleged to be lectured by.
'A professional is one that puts the practice of his/her profession before himself/herself.'
This would not include picking and choosing which procedures you perform based on religious or otherwise non-medical moral grounds.
posted on May 17, 2004 09:05:21 AM new
fenix - You have completely ignored the fact that this law does not specifify a procedure. It is wide open, It just gives them the right to refuse anything they are morally, ethically or religiously opposed to.
I'm NOT ignoring what the bill allows. But I am stating why this bill was presented to begin with. Those who are in the medical field who are being forced to do patient treatments that are against their morals/ethics/religion.
It is not wide open in the sense that our other laws still apply. One cannot refuse to treat a patient of color or a patient of a different religion. And I don't know of a main-stream religion who 'calls' fr that either.
But one can, if this passes their Senate votes, now abide by their convictions and not be forced to do otherwise.
All the other senarios your suggest will each be challenged IF they come up....but I doubt that will be the case.
posted on May 17, 2004 09:12:10 AM newThey should be when they practice under a public license and education system. If they refuse on non-medical grounds they should lose their licenses
reamond - Oh really? Then you do believe they're indentured servents. They're not....they're free to form their own practices and treat and see exactly who they wish to. Any doctor can tell a patient they don't want to care for them.
You guys just don't like it that some have a different moral/ethical standard/religious value system than you do and it's one you don't appreciate....so you support taking away the right of others.
I'm glad this passed their House and I hope it passes their Senate. Then I hope more states go on to putting this same type of legislation up for a vote of their elected officials. Because you have no right to tell a doctor what he/she has to do in their own practice....in their own business...and with their own value system.
