Michigan Preparing to Let Doctors Refuse to Treat Gays

[pegkerr]

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday [April 21, 2004] 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. Read more.

[Edited to add: This bill, Michigan HB 5006, seems to have been passed in April, 2004. As best as I can tell, the corresponding Senate Bill, SB 972, is bottled up in the Senate Health Policy committee. Let's hope it stays stuck there forever.]

Comments

[jeanineers.livejournal.com]

sad

[catmcroy.livejournal.com]

that is absolutely disgusting!!!

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

The real problem with legislation of this sort is that it runs counter to the rules that the AMA has laid down governing the conduct of doctors. For instance, in other states legislatures have passed laws requiring doctors to turn over to the state medical records that the AMA says CANNOT be turned over to other entities without violating doctor-patient confidentiality. In a case like that, however, the law is penalizing doctors for adhering to the AMA rules, so the AMA can defend their actions in court and a jury is unlikely to blame a doctor for obeying the AMA over an intrusive state law that violates patient privacy.

The AMA always tends to fight legislation that runs counter to their code of conduct for doctors. Refusing care for the reasons included in this legislation would likely be cause for disciplinary action by the AMA if doctors took advantage of this law, so it really doesn't do a doctor much good to be "protected" from prosecution by this law if his or her professional credentials are at risk. The difference with this law is that it is PREVENTING doctors from being charged, so if it passes it is unlikely to be challenged in court.

However, even if the AMA takes care of anyone who takes advantage of the law to avoid treating certain patients, this sounds rather like it is intended to prevent lawsuits against doctors who refuse to treat. And, as noted, the design of this law makes it extremely difficult to construct a test case that can challenge it. You need to rely upon sensible legislators to repeal such a thing once passed.

[pameladean]

You said Minnesota in the entry. That really gave me a bad moment.

So much for the wonders of the new Pope. What the hell is wrong with these people?

P.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oops. Have fixed.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

Gah. I'm shocked and horrified that anybody who had taken the Hippocratic oath would refuse treatment. (Part of me is wondering if this is gearing up not so much for the gays and lesbians, but just as pre-repealing of abortion rights.)

On the other hand, if I was gay, I really wouldn't want my health and safety in the hands of somebody who had a strong enough bias against me that they would refuse to treat me.

[lkw18.livejournal.com]

...and Michigan was a blue state too.....

this is totally unexceptable.

i can't even believe this...

[sarekofvulcan.livejournal.com]

"this is totally unexceptable."

Sadly, this typo is becoming all too accurate.

[lkw18.livejournal.com]

oh shit. i didn't even catch that until now.

[anomilygrace.livejournal.com]

Michigan's not really a blue state...Detroit is a blue city (and thankfully still has enough people to outbalance the rest). Most of Michigan outside of Detroit is terribly, terribly conservative.

(says the person who was told during high school that she was going to h*** on a regular basis because she was a fairly outspoken liberal and feminist)

*sigh* We do what we can, but sometimes it's not enough.

[silme.livejournal.com]

I am equally appalled. What is happening to the country in which I was born?

Of course, who knows? The Tories could win here today. I despise New Labour, but I know that the Lib Dems won't win a majority, alas. I suppose I could just hope that the Lib Dems will come in second to New Labour. A Tory (Conservative) majority would be horrible.

Oh, for the days of old Labour!

[jbru.livejournal.com]

Here's a concept: if you have a problem providing health care service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds, don't become a health care worker!

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

My brain can't get past the concept that refusing health care where needed is anyone's idea of the moral or ethical high ground. Does not compute.

[aome.livejournal.com]

I'm too appalled to form a coherent thought. Who THINKS of these things?? Whoever proposed this bill should be voted out at the next available opportunity.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

That is horrible and dehumanizing.

[ravenspb.livejournal.com]

Well, that's just hideous! Yet, a small voice in my head is saying "At least it's not Florida for once." We seemed to have cornered the market on STUPID down here.

I guess I could hope for cooler heads to prevail up there, but it is not looking good. Time for some "activist judges" to get involved.

[mayakda.livejournal.com]

I still think of myself as Catholic, but damn it, I'm not that kind of Catholic. That's horrible, horrible.
What have these people done to the church I grew up in? Whatever happened to "we are all children of God?"

[dancingwriter.livejournal.com]

So much for the Hippocratic Oath, I guess....

I just can't believe these things are happening in America.

[cedarlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I was just about to say the same thing. Maybe they can change it to "First do no harm, except if your patients are gay, women wanting birth control, not monogamous..."

[wilfulcait.livejournal.com]

I think we should tackle these people and tattoo "what would Jesus do" on their foreheads. I seem to remember something about lepers...

[elfundeb.livejournal.com]

This is sad, and an utterly unacceptable position for representatives of a faith that professes to be about love. How can the Michigan Catholic Conference reconcile this bill with the parable of the Good Samaritan? Or the woman caught in the act of adultery?

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

The text of the bill itself is here If I'm reading things right, it actually passed in the House more than a year ago. I'm having trouble finding anything newer than this on the Michigan Legistative Site.

Dear God I hope this gets shot down...

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

It looks like the corresponding Senate bill, SB 972, got buried in the Senate health policy committee. Let's hope it never sees the light of day.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

How far is it from that to, "I don't want to treat Arabs because too many of them are terrorists," or "I don't want to treat Jews because they rejected Jesus and are thus immoral," or even (for a nut-fringe radical feminist) "I don't want to treat men because they're all oppressors"?

Sure, those sound progressively more lunatically unlikely. But so, I would have said until recently, was the idea of this law.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Argh.

[fourleftxaviers.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's the most messed up thing I've heard today.

All things considered? I'm surprised by their wussiness in not allowing emergency procedures to be refused. Hey, if you're going to let doctors refuse to treat them within 24 hours, why not go all the way and just let them die?

A few reactons

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

1: If this should pass, please remind me to keep my faggity-ass out of Michigan.

2: How is the "gayness" of the patient determined?

3: How could the backers of this bill NOT see that it applied also to them? There are folks out there (the KKK comes to mind, even if they're not known for their medical schools...) who have moral objections to Catholics.

4: Are they outta their frikkin' little minds?