Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Doctors to Refuse Treatement of Gays

[w4rma]

The Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives passed a
measure today that would allow doctors to refuse to treat gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender patients. The Conscientious Objector Policy
Act provides 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.

The bill was strongly supported by the Michigan Catholic Conference, a
conservative religious organization that also hosted a legislative day
for Catholics at the state Capitol today. The bill now goes to the
Republican-controlled Senate, according to 365gay.com.

In addition, three other bills that may affect health care for LGBT
patients were approved by the House today. One 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.

Vocal opponents of the measure included Rep. Chris Kolb, the first
openly gay legislator in Michigan. "Are you telling me that a health
care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual
orientation? I hope not," he asked the House.

OTHER VOICES OF OPPOSITION IN THE MICHIGAN HOUSE:

Rep. Bieda: "I voted against HB 5277 and 5288 because these
organizations already can decide not to offer a particular service, or
coverage for a particular service, and that this legislation is not
needed."

Rep. Meisner: "In order to become a physician, individuals must take
the Hippocratic Oath ... Nowhere in the oath does it say that
physicians shall not treat people whose ethnicity, sexual orientation,
or beliefs they may not agree with or approve of. This package of bills
would amend the Hippocratic Oath in a way that takes rights away from
people in the name of protecting the rights of others. We do not have
the moral or professional standing to do either."

Rep. Kolb: "This bill allows health care providers to deny needed
health care services to any individual not currently protected from
discrimination under the state's Elliot-Larsen civil rights act. Thus,
a health provider could refuse health care to an individual based upon
a patient's actual or perceived sexual orientation. I adamantly oppose
this legislation and believe that this is a very dangerous path for
Michigan to travel down."

RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE

Associated Press - April 22, 2004
"Michigan Votes to Protect Conscience Rights" - by Amy F. Bailey
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/...,0,3050849.story?coll=sns-ap-health-headlines

365gay.com - April 22, 2004
"Michigan Preparing to Let Doctors Refuse to Treat Gays"
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm

Lansing State Journal - March 28, 2004
"Health morality: 'Objector' bills deserve defeat"

OTHER RELEVANT LINKS:

Full text of bill:
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billengrossed/house/htm/2003-HEBH-5006.htm

Michigan Catholic Conference Statement:
http://www.micatholicconference.org/home/home.html

This publication of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
(GLAAD) can be found here:
http://www.glaad.org/media/newspops_detail.php?id=3659

segregation redux: Separate water-fountains, separate restauraunts, separate schools, separate doctors …

 

[dischord]

Doctors are not slaves (or at least should not be). The fact that we even consider the question of "allowing" them to treat or not treat whomever they choose is an indication that we humans still are stuck in the pre-human dominance/submission pack mentality of monkeys.

A doctor who refuses to treat a homosexual is EVIL.

A government that forces him to treat that homosexual is MORE EVIL.

 

[Barbara]

This is the law designed to prevent doctors from having to perform abortions if they think its a sin, right?

I don't see the problem, and I'm probably the least homophobic person you'll ever meet. I don't want to do anything that compromises my religious beliefs and I don't believe in forcing others to, either.

I wouldn't have a doctor who would deny someone medical care based on that criteria, but I believe they have the right to do it on religious grounds.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Here is w4rma's latest:

The Conscientious Objector Policy
Act provides 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

This is another example of w4rma's use of misleading, dishonest language to create a false impression. The bill does NOT entitle physicians to refuse to treat people because they are gay.

Note the difference between:

1.) w4rma's claim that the bill would allow physicians to refuse treatment to homosexuals...

2.) the truth, i.e., that the bill ACTUALLY only allows physicians to refuse to perform proceedures they disagree with on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, and says nothing about giving them the right to refuse to treat someone because of their sexual orientation. Under this bill a physician would NOT be entilted to refuse to treat a patient merely because they are gay.


And, how is this topic firearms related?

 

[w4rma]

This is the law designed to prevent doctors from having to perform abortions if they think its a sin, right?

This is the law designed to prevent health care workers and insurers from having to perform *any* procedure, fill *any* prescription or cover *any* treatment for something they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons. It codifies discrimination against gays and anything else that someone might decide their stated religion opposes. This is a very broadly written bill (and it may have been written broadly for just this purpose).

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Here's the bill summary, from www.mi.gov

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILL 5006 AS INTRODUCED 7-17-03 AND HOUSE BILLS 5276-5278 AS INTRODUCED 11-6-04

As a package, the bills would allow, under certain conditions, a health care provider or health facility to refuse to provide or participate in a health care service and allow health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to refuse to offer or provide a health care benefit.

House Bill 5006 would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act to allow a health care provider to assert, as a matter of conscience, an objection to providing or participating in a health care service that conflicted with his or her sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. The bill would:

· Provide a procedure for notifying an employer of a conscientious objection.

· Prohibit an employer from refusing employment or staff privileges to a provider who asserted an objection to providing or participating in a health service.

· Prohibit a medical school from denying admission to a person who filed a conscientious objection.

· Specify that a provider’s objection could not be the basis for civil liability, criminal action, administrative or licensure action, or termination of employment or refusal of staff privileges at a health facility, or an involuntary change in terms or conditions of employment or disciplinary action.

· Provide a number of circumstances under which the protections afforded under the bill to a provider would not apply.

· Allow an employer to terminate a provider’s employment, with at least 60 days advance notice, if the service objected to constituted a regular or substantial portion of the provider’s current and defined position.
(note: in cutting and pasting the bill summary, I inadvertantly left out this portion. Edited to add this portion. Sorry for any confusion)

· Allow a provider to bring a civil action, including a petition for injunctive relief, if he or she was penalized or suffered discrimination for asserting a conscientious objection to providing or participating in a health service.

· Make a violation of the bill a state civil infraction and establish penalties.





House Bill 5276 would create a new act to exempt a “health facility†from providing or participating in a health care service that violated an ethical, moral, or religious principle reflected in its articles of incorporation, bylaws, or an adopted mission statement. A facility asserting an allowable conscientious objection would be required to provide notice of its objection through written public notice or personally in writing at the time an individual sought to obtain that service from the facility.

A facility could not assert such an objection to a service if the facility routinely provided or participated in the service and the objection was based on a disagreement with a member of a health profession employed by, under contract to, or granted privileges by the facility regarding the medical appropriateness of a service for a specific patient if the patient had already consented to the provision of the service. Nor could an objection “exclude an entire health profession.†A facility’s objection to providing or participating in a health care service could not be a basis for either of the following: civil, criminal, or administrative liability; or, with one stated exception, eligibility discrimination against the facility in a grant, contract, or program.

“Health facility†would mean a health facility or agency as defined in the Public Health Code, a private physician office, or a public or private institution, teaching institution, pharmacy, corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship that provided a health care service to an individual. “Health care service†would mean the provision or withdrawal of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical treatment, procedure, device, medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the physical or mental condition of an individual. “Participating in†a service would include counseling, referring, performing, administering, prescribing, dispensing, treating, withholding, withdrawing, diagnosing, testing, evaluating, training, researching, preparing, or providing material or physical assistance in a health care service.

House Bills 5277 and 5278 would allow a health insurer, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to refuse to offer or provide a health care benefit that violated an ethical, moral, or religious principle in its articles of incorporation or bylaws or an adopted mission statement. This would not apply to a health care benefit if the benefit was specifically covered under the certificate, contract, or policy. Further, the refusal to offer or provide a health care benefit could not be a basis for one or more of the following: civil, criminal, or administrative liability; or, with one stated exception, eligibility discrimination against the health care corporation in providing a certificate.

House Bill 5277 would add a new section to the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act (MCL 550.409a), which regulates Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. House Bill 5278 would add a new section to the Insurance Code (MCL 500.3406r) to apply to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and commercial insurers.

Bold emphasis is mine.
I take it as a health care provider can not refuse any service to anyone that they provide to everyone else.

 

[tcdrennen]

I agree with Sgt Bob - as far as I can see, this means they can refuse to perform certain medical procedures ON EVRYONE, not just on SOME PEOPLE while performing them on others.

IOW, they can refuse to perform abortions - on anyone, gay or straight, though I'm pretty sure the gay demand for abortion is pretty low anyway...

w4rma, you're putting (or repeating, I suspect) a pretty bizarre spin on this. The only reason I can imagine is furthering some ulterior agenda which has little or nothing to do with the issues raised in the bill. Or more fear-and-loathing mongering by those dedicated to authoritarian imposition of their dogma on others - 'cause the bill does the exact OPPOSITE OF THAT: it allows an individual to follow his/her own conscience.

And I'll ask the mods again - exactly what does this have to do with firearms or shooting?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

w4rma

It codifies discrimination against gays and anything else that someone might decide their stated religion opposes.

Would you mind showing us exactly where it codifies discrimination against gays?

 

[dischord]

It codifies discrimination against gays and anything else that someone might decide their stated religion opposes.

Why should the government have the power to force a doctor to treat anyone?

 

[agricola]

2.) the truth, i.e., that the bill ACTUALLY only allows physicians to refuse to perform proceedures they disagree with on religious, moral, or ethical grounds, and says nothing about giving them the right to refuse to treat someone because of their sexual orientation. Under this bill a physician would NOT be entilted to refuse to treat a patient merely because they are gay.

no, but if they refused because they believed that homosexuality was a sin against their religion they could invoke this legislation (5006 anyway). the use of terms like "moral" and "ethical" is fraught with danger anyway, because this can mean absolutely anything depending on the person concerned, and it seemingly prevents the management from dealing with that person based on such an objection by way of dismissal or other discipline.

5276 extends the same right to the facility, though as Sgt Bob points out there are more restrictions here.

Very bad pieces of legislation IMHO - far too broadly defined.

 

[agricola]

dischord,

Why should the government have the power to force a doctor to treat anyone?

have doctors been driven to work by whip-bearing slavemasters? beaten during operations? have guns pointed to their heads during rounds?

5006 in particular severely affects the rights of patients - availablity of treatment based on financial circumstances is one thing, but availability of treatment according to the doctors definition of ethics and morality is a step beyond that.

sgt bob,

5006 allows discrimination against anyone and everyone based on the individual doctors worldview.

 

[dischord]

agricola: have doctors been driven to work by whip-bearing slavemasters? beaten during operations? have guns pointed to their heads during rounds?

Spare me the silliness. I suspect that the forcing comes via threats of fines or loss of license. That the forcing is not overtly violent doesn't make it OK.

agricola: 5006 in particular severely affects the rights of patients - availablity of treatment based on financial circumstances is one thing, but availability of treatment according to the doctors definition of ethics and morality is a step beyond that.

Are there other areas where you want to force people to do things against their morals?

As I said above, the ethic of refusing treatment to gays is evil, but forcing the doctor to do so is more evil.

agricola: rights of patients - availablity of treatment

This idea is why there will be no agreement between you and me on this matter, I suspect. No one has the right to be given anything.

You have the rights to own a house, to eat, to be heathly, to defend yourself -- but those rights do not translate into other people obligations to provide them.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Doctors (or any other individual providing service for hire) should be able to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. It's sad that a bill like this even needed to be written, but to the extent that it does, it seems to make pretty good law.

- Chris

 

[thefitzvh]

w4rma, I'm surprised at you. How could you possibly take an article and put your own spin on it? That's so out of character for you!


Not gun related, let's get rid of it. This is another "Let's stir things up and cause trouble" thread.


James

 

[Sergeant Bob]

agricola

sgt bob,

5006 allows discrimination against anyone and everyone based on the individual doctors worldview.

----------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill 5006 would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act to allow a health care provider to assert, as a matter of conscience, an objection to providing or participating in a health care service that conflicted with his or her sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.

· Allow an employer to terminate a provider’s employment, with at least 60 days advance notice, if the service objected to constituted a regular or substantial portion of the provider’s current and defined position.
(note: in cutting and pasting the bill summary, I inadvertantly left out this portion. Will edit my original post to reflect the same. Sorry for any confusion)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The way I read it is, the health care provider can only refuse to perform a service to which he objects to, not on whom it is performed.
Also allows an employer to terminate someone who will not perform procedures which are regularly performed by the provider, ie, a doctor who works at a fertility clinic but refuses to perform the procedures because of his religious beliefs.
Agreed, it is a bit vague though, or we would probably not be having this discussion.

 

[rich2u]

WOW! I guess that means I won't be seeing to many Catholics seeings how I'm a follower of that rebel Luther huh.

 

[dustind]

Guys, this is legal and political. It does not have to be gun related.

As for my opinion, no one should be forced to do anything.