I feel ill

This is the first I heard about it. Michigan Doctors want to refuse treatment of gays, and it appears that they are going to be able to. Read about it here

So all Doctors in Michigan want to refuse treatment of gays? I highly doubt that.

And even if some doctors would be inclined to do so due to moral or religious belief, why, outside of life threatening conditions, should they be forced to perform services for people they do not wish to?

The vast majority of doctors are going to not let their personal beliefs affect their professional work. The ones that do will simply lose that business to other doctors.

=) I hope so. I wouldn't believe that all doctors in michigan feel that way. The way the article read, it seemed as though a majority of them did.
I found more about it, it did in fact pass, with exceptions.
more here

did you try reading a non-spun article about the bill?

or even the bill itself?

oh come on, by this same argument then people could refuse treatment of people who wear blue shirts or happen to be females or aren't above a certain line..

my religon states that i shouldn't treat short people or fat people or ... whatever. not treating gays should be treated as equally repulsive/idiotic as allowing doctors to not treat fat people. we have laws that supposedly provide equal protection (whether or not it is in fair hiring or housing or what have you) and somewhere in all that, i don't remember seeing an asterix that said, "only if you happen to believe in such and such and don't do anything that might clash with our religious beliefs".

its not whether or not all doctors in a particular state would refuse treatment, but rather that could refuse treatment. its a slippery slope.

moral or religious belief is just a convenient excuse to be a small minded moron and to be frank, i think its a good thing that the government does not encourage people to be small minded morons, well as much as possible. it wasn't very long ago when you exchange "gay" with "black". its pretty universally accepted (I hope) that refusing someone treatment based on their skin color was an utter stupidity and i look forward to a time when we don't have to worry about this kind of thing for sexual preference either.

from what i've read of the bill, it seems to apply more to an objection to the medical procedure than the patient.

the bill does not extend to emergency situations.

the bill stipulates that the medical practitioner must state 24 hours in advance to be guaranteed exemption.

personally, as a patient, i would rather have a medical practitioner who wanted to be working on me than someone who simply had to.

from what i've read of the bill, it seems to apply more to an objection to the medical procedure than the patient.

i object to giving medical treatment A. (general checkups) to patients that are gay.

the bill does not extend to emergency situations.

thats good, its only legal to descriminate when the patient's life isn't in danger. hooray, break out the champaigne.

the bill stipulates that the medical practitioner must state 24 hours in advance to be guaranteed exemption.

you can only descriminate, if you say you plan on descriminating in advance. someone order me another bottle!

personally, as a patient, i would rather have a medical practitioner who wanted to be working on me than someone who simply had to.

personally, as a patient, i'd rather have someone work on me that knew what they were doing. if a person doesn't like what they're doing, they should do something else. if they don't want to do abortions, don't work in clinics that give them. if they want to descriminate, let them work at salvation army or a church. sure they won't be able to practice medicine legally, but to be honest, I don't see that as a really bad thing.

oh come on, by this same argument then people could refuse treatment of people who wear blue shirts or happen to be females or aren't above a certain line..

Yes, exactly. It's called "freedom of association". Noone has the right to the fruits of another person's labor. Medical care is not a right. (Yes, I know you're going to disagree with that, so let's just leave it as a fundamental disagreement in the way we view rights).

its not whether or not all doctors in a particular state would refuse treatment, but rather that could refuse treatment. its a slippery slope.

Yes, it is about would vs could. So what if they could? The chance that every doctor in a state or other geographical area would deny medical care to gay people is so statistically remote as to be a virtual impossibility. What, there are no gay physicians?

moral or religious belief is just a convenient excuse to be a small minded moron and to be frank, i think its a good thing that the government does not encourage people to be small minded morons, well as much as possible.

What, so people don't have the right to be small minded morons? Well, there goes half the population. People have the right to be as mysoginistic, narrow minded, bigoted, and vulgar as they so choose to be so long as they do not violate the rights of someone else. Simply protecting someone's freedom of association does not make it encouragement. Are you saying that someone who made such a demented choice would be well received in the community?

In a free society, other people would be equally free to shun such an individual and exercise their freedom of association not to do business or associate with them if they found their decision distasteful.

Yes, exactly. It's called "freedom of association". Noone has the right to the fruits of another person's labor. Medical care is not a right. (Yes, I know you're going to disagree with that, so let's just leave it as a fundamental disagreement in the way we view rights).

to be honest, I don't care what its called, essentially if you support things like this, its a very quick ride back into poll taxes, segregation, unfair housing and hiring practicies, etc etc, etc. i, for one, am not really too thrilled with the idea of tossing out five decades of civil rights and the countless years before that getting to the point where we can all drink out of the same water fountains. you can call religious bigotry whatever the hell you want to call it, its still trying to put wrapping paper on a turd and trust me it still a turd.

Yes, it is about would vs could. So what if they could? The chance that every doctor in a state or other geographical area would deny medical care to gay people is so statistically remote as to be a virtual impossibility. What, there are no gay physicians?

its not about whether or not there is a chance, its that it shouldn't be. descrimination is unacceptable. tell me who exactly is going to be judging whether or not these medical professionals have valid religious objections to procedures? are we going to have the government telling people what religions are valid so that say the concerns of wiccans don't hold as much weight as say the predominant religion of the day? and who cares whether or not there are gay or non-gay physicans, really? what does that have to do with the price of rice in china? unless of course, you're advocating some sort of separate but equal status where gay people can be treated by their own kind. i guess they can be taught by their own kind as well. Since after this I am sure if this succeeds we'll have teachers that won't teach gay people because its against their religion (and schools that won't because they have teachers that won't) and they can go to the gay pharmacy to get their drugs in the gay grocery store and then when they're thirsty they can go and get a drink at the gay drinking fountain. but hey, at least the religious people won't have to associate with them. they can hang out with the people that think the world is flat and we're the center of the universe and argue over the amount of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. and yes, i'm being very critical of the catholic church, if you feel its unwarrented, come get some. i'll have no problems pulling up modern day examples of their stupidity (no female priests or bishops or popes for example or telling people not to use contraceptives).

What, so people don't have the right to be small minded morons? Well, there goes half the population. People have the right to be as mysoginistic, narrow minded, bigoted, and vulgar as they so choose to be so long as they do not violate the rights of someone else. Simply protecting someone's freedom of association does not make it encouragement. Are you saying that someone who made such a demented choice would be well received in the community?

No, if you actually read what I wrote, I didn't say people couldn't be morons, I said the government should not be encouraging them. They most certainly do have the right to be as ignorant and stupid as they want, but when their ignorance and stupidity does infringe upon my rights I've got a problem with that. and while you may not feel that health care is a right (i do), the idea that I could be denied health care that might save my life or that of my children, neighbors, loved ones because they don't believe in something that someone else thinks is right, yea, i've got serious problems with that. esp. if it happens to be in a place that is either partially or fully funded with my tax dollars. tell me when you're given the right to not treat gay people, how long before you have the right not to treat people that have political opinions you don't like? Exactly how is this protecting someone's freedom of association?

As far as I am aware, this law was put in place to give the biggoted the right of association. If the freedom was already there, there wouldn't need to be legislation giving health care workers these freedoms, now would there? So if you're making legislation to give this freedom, would that not be considered encouragement? This is not about protection, unless you mean in the sense of protecting someone who wants to be a biggot from the reprocussions such biggotry often faces.

In a free society, other people would be equally free to shun such an individual and exercise their freedom of association not to do business or associate with them if they found their decision distasteful.

As you well know, we do not live in a completely free society. We can't yell fire in crowded theatre, yadda yadda yadda. we also can't not hire women or minorities simply because they happen to be women or minorities (or at least we shouldn't), unless of course, you work for a church. there are lots of limitations on what we can and cannot do and while you might feel these things are unacceptable, i am sure you'd find yourself in a gross minority (although if you were to transport yourself back into the 1950s you might find a stronger audience). just like if you wanted to greater support of your belief that the earth might be flat.

riddle me this, are there church, religious hospitals? and if so, what is stopping these medical professionals from working there? why should my tax dollars go to organisations that descriminate against gays when those same tax dollars can't (unless of course, they go to the salvation army) be used to descriminate against minorities and women? tell me how it is in the public interest that a secular organisation allow descrimination of people based on religious beliefs?

under section 11

12 (c) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to
13 providing or participating in a health care service based on the
14 classification of a patient or group of patients protected under
15 the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to
16 37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.



17 (2) Subject to a collective bargaining agreement, if a health
18 care provider asserts an objection to a health care service that
19 at the time the objection is asserted constitutes a regular or
20 substantial portion of the health care provider's current and
21 defined position, the employer may give the health care provider
22 not less than 60 days' notice of the termination of his or her
23 employment. As used in this section, "regular or substantial
24 portion" means that 10% or more of the health care provider's
25 daily or weekly hours of duty consist of providing or
26 participating in that health care service.

i'm not sure exactly what the classifications under the Elliot-Larson civil right rights act.

but this would seem to be where the difference between objecting to a procedure and objecting to a person is.

objecting to procedure X is NOT the same as
thinking procedure X is a-ok, except when procedure X is performed on a person of Y group.

i'm not sure exactly what the classifications under the Elliot-Larson civil right rights act.

but this would seem to be where the difference between objecting to a procedure and objecting to a person is.

I don't know either, but I would surmise that its probably a reference to legislation that provides equal protection under the law (since its sort of part of the US constitution, 14th ammendment). so that when this does get challenged (and it will) and its sitting at the michigan supreme court or a federal appeals court they can say "look we're not descriminating based on current law". i can only hope that its seen as the narrow minded stupidness that it is. the only reason why i bring up women and minorities is because most people find that discrminating against them as being pretty stupid, yet the practice was widely accepted only fifty years ago. women's rights is still an extremely young idea in the history of the world.

who exactly defines what is 10% or more of the health care provider's daily or weekly hours? is that clock hours or work hours? is it the amount of time in the procedure or how much time is in prep + procedure? not only that, but if the health care provider has a change of heart, even knowing that the job they've just taken involves more than 10% of an objectionable procedure, they get a 60 day repreive from unemployment. shit I can't wait for this to get into the computer industry. two months on the company dole before i can be fired. i can't wait.

"i refuse to work on computers because technology offends my religious sensibilities"

objecting to procedure X is NOT the same as
thinking procedure X is a-ok, except when procedure X is performed on a person of Y group.

oh really, please point to me in the law where it stipulates how such a religious objection should be formulated? so you're telling me i could not write down something like:

i do not wish to do surgery on a person that happens to be homosexual because its against my religion.

if not, well, then its much todo about nothing i guess. strangely, there seems to be a lot of objections from homosexual community about this.. (and pretty much most people that believe in equal rights) which i guess it just a lot of fear mongering. really all this bill is really about is creating a beurocratic nightmare for hospitals as they're inundated with moral declarations from health service workers as they object to all kinds of procedures based on their religious sensibilites. enjoying a 60 day vacation on the hopsital when they're not able to be fired for such objections... and a small step in the allowing of publically funded religious hospitals that may or may not give you treatment if you either pass or fail a test on whether you're holy enough to receive such treatment.

As you well know, we do not live in a completely free society. We can't yell fire in crowded theatre, yadda yadda yadda.

Again, we have a difference of opinion on what rights are. The reason you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre is not because there's artificial limitations on your freedom of speech. It is because you cannot use your freedoms to trample someone else's. Yelling fire in a theater when there isn't one endangers other people's freedoms.

And speaking of minorities, the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be for minority rights.

Now, getting back to the example at hand with the doctor who wants to deny treatment to a gay person. Given that most doctors accept various health insurance plans, or are member of such plans then they are bound by the membership of those plans.

So, if say, Medicare or Blue Cross Blue Shield extends benefits to a gay person, then a doctor belonging to or accepting the plans is contractually bound to honor that. If they deny benefits to gay persons, then the person has a right to sue to remedy. Or the health care plan can kick the doctor out (thus denying them business).

Given the fact that it was *private* health care companies which first extended same-sex partner benefits to gays, I would say the free market is working in this area.

So, a doctor who would seriously try to make such an assinine exemption would open himself up to suits by either the insurance company or the patient for breach of contract. Or they would be penalized by having insurance companies remove them from their plans, thus costing them financially.

The free market will work without having government force things one way or another.

this is a very "spun" aspect of the bill.

borrowed from beasi.net

Here is the actual text of the bill: PDF or TXT

basically further quoting what paul said there, the bill could potentially be abused in the way the article you posted would have us believe, but that is NOT the intent of the bill.

here is the text of an article Jan Klump found, i don't have a link to the article itself.

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 measures 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 Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly approved the four-bill package as dozens of Catholics looked on from the balcony.


The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics yesterday at the state Capitol. The Catholic Church opposes abortion and birth control.


The bills now go the state Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.


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 vote mostly was along party lines with Republicans supporting the measure and Democrats opposing it.


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 measures would not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.


Democratic state 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.


State Rep. Jack Minore, D-Flint, said the bill would prevent patients' health-care needs from being considered before anything else.


"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," he said before voting against the bill.


Republican state 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 promoted 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.


Other opponents said they're worried the bills would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.


Democratic state Rep. Chris Kolb of Ann Arbor, the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health-care providers, it does not 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.


The conscientious-objector bills, House Bill 5006 and 5276-78, can be viewed and tracked on the Michigan Legislature Web site.

i must have missed something.. i've read the bill, i'm curious as to what you feel is the exact purpose of the bill is?

cause i may not be the smartest guy on the planet, but i see this as a backdoor way of refusing to give abortions in states where it is legal. i also see it as a way of refusing to say, inform patients about procedures that might be benefitial to them (contraceptives, sex education, etc) and to refuse treatment of people because they don't conform to their religious belief (i.e gay). but hey, I must have missed the intent of the bill. really, cause all I see is that it allows doctors the "freedom" to descriminate without any reprocussion.

its my hope that such legislation will be struck down in federal court and if it isn't that someone gets the bright idea to post the names of all the doctors and fascilities that deny services so they can avoid them.

but it's also a way of protecting the nurse who believes abortion is murder from having to partake in the procedure.

there are plenty of medical practitioners who do not find these services objectionable.

well, guess what, if they find the practice repulsive, then they shouldn't work in a clinic that gives them. and if they do and its part of the job that they assist in such things, then the employer should have the right to remove them.

its that simple. i find making guidence systems for nuclear missles objectionable, i don't do that. pretty simple.

what about the nurse that finds treating black people objectionable?

abortions aren't only performed in abortion clinics. at least not in canada. i don't know about the US, but in canada, abortions are often performed in a regular, general hospital.

and i believe there's a clause to the effect if the practitioner object to more than 10% of his or her workload he or she should resign.

its that simple. i find making guidence systems for nuclear missles objectionable, i don't do that. pretty simple. but you can still work in that field, developing guidance systems, without being required to develop them for nuclear weapons.

it should be just as easy for me to be medical practioner who does not perform abortions. one procedure out of thousands.

again, there are *plenty* and I mean, plenty of places that do not perform abortions and doctoral professions that would mean no-chance of having to do them or such a small chance that it'd have a lot of zeros after the decimal place.

see, i am very certain that if you become an ER doctor there is a very small, nay miniscule, chance that you'd have to perform an emergency abortion (which of course, they'd have to do under the "law" as it was written). of course, i'm not really talking out of experience, but I could call up some doctor friends of mine and ask them about how many abortions they've done working in the ER. if its above zero, I'd be very shocked. i'm sure that this also extends to nurses.

and if you were say a pediatrist, you'd find that your chances of doing an abortion probably somewhere in the "never-ever" range.

its not a secret that abortions are happening in the places where they happen, its part and parcel with the job description. if someone doesn't want to do the procedure, they should *go someplace else*.

i am a surgical nurse. a damn fine surgical nurse.

there is no reason why i couldn't be assisting in all sorts of other surgical procedures.

i'll pose the same questions to you as I did andy.

are there not clinics and hospitals that are run by the church?

if they are, why don't the damn fine surgical nurses work there? and even if there are not, tell me, how does it surve the public good if a secular institution (the government of both the US and canada) allows for descrimination based on religious belief? esp. since the hospitals and clinics in canada (unless i've been grossly misinformed are funded by the people). and furthermore, which religions do you allow to have have such objections, which ones do you think the government should deem valid? i know i'd like the government to make up valid religion lists.

there is nothing stopping you're damn find surgical nurse from working in other areas of the hospital that do not involve abortions, esp if she is a damn fine surgical nurse. i am sure the places in the hospital where back, hand, foot, etc surgeries occur would gladly take a damn fine surgical nurse. although i may be grossly misinformed about how a hospital is run (who knows, maybe its impossible to be a surgical nurse without doing an abortion), i do know that we have clinics here in seattle that only handle sports related injuries and i'd can probably say with some certainty that abortion isn't a sports related injury.

beyond that, if i were the best damn nuclear physisist in the world but didn't want to work on nuclear weapons and the job I was looking to accept said "may have to work on nuclear weapons", I should be prepared to do so. Either that or not accept the job or accept the job and then sometime in the future send up a note saying "oh yea, its against my religious beliefs to work on that whole nuclear weapon thing". Its one of those .. you know, things about conviction, nobody ever said it'd be easy, actually quite the opposite (if i weren't tired, i'd probably drop some sort of quote here or talk about the numerous martyrs from the catholic faith).

I find it ironic that the gallery was full of Catholics when lately, its been their own priests involved in far more 'scandalous' behavior.
Perhaps they should have been pressing for a bill to allow people to lynch pedophiles instead, hmm? And when has it ever been necessary for a doctor to explain why they refuse to see a patient?

ech, see i'm of two minds on this...
i'm okay with not forcing people to abandon their religions in the process of their careers, but i am also not in favor of forcing people to accept that there are prejudice people all around.
then again, i am also thinking that any doctor who refuses to see a patient because they are gay is ignoring their oath, the Hyppocratic oath, right? And also, I know of no commandment that says, "Thou shalt not treat gays." In fact, Jesus' philosophy, as far as I understand it, was to love everyone, to help everyone.

why do you find it ironic, the bill was designed to appeal to the fundies.. i would think it would be pretty obvious that legislation that allows descrimination based on religious belief would appeal to those that wish to descriminate. the issue of priests and their affinity to young boys is a completely separate matter.

well, it has always been necessary for a doctor to explain why they refuse a patient, just like it is necessary for a person renting out an apartment to be able to justify why someone wouldn't be qualified to rent. because we'd all love to believe in everyone's better angels, unfortunately, people tend to be less than angelic. just like many christians i have known talk a good game about love thy neighbor as thyself but have an awful lot of strange conditions when it comes into practice.

and nobody is saying that you have to give up your religion to do a career, but if you choose a career that has as a part of its job description something you find morally indefensible then you shouldn't be in that career (or in the case of doctors and nurses, work some place where you wouldn't have to do that procedure). personally speaking, i would find being a hired killer to be something i probably could not do. so my morals have limited my career choice. strangely enough, this hasn't ever made me loose sleep at night, knowing that i couldn't be a hired killer. but for the sake of argument, if i only had a moral quandry that only limited my killing to say, men, i am sure i could find work just killing guys and leaving women, children and animals alone.

just to set the record straight, being christian, (or any other religion) doesn't makes someone a perfect practitioner of said religion. people don't stop being human because they believe in something higher than themselves.

People don't necessarily have to turn off their minds just because they believe in God either. Just because some old man in a dress in Rome says something is wrong doesn't make it so.

Can someone please Godwin this thread? It's already gotten out of hand talking about religion and ad hominen attacks abound.

bah. you want to just end the thread and silence everyone because you disagree with it? you do realise that's what the Nazis would do, right?

:)

oh, come on.� intentional invocation doesn't work.� it's stated right in the law!

although, if you want to know about nazis, I'm quite the expert of late.� hmm.

Can someone please Godwin this thread?

What does that mean?

See...some people laugh, and others need an explanation...

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Usenet was what people used to converse prior to the WWW.

was? some of us still use it...

I have heard of this "usenet" of which you speak, but never known what to do with it. I gather it is either an e-ail service or a message board, yes? and where can it be found, and isn't there some sort of moxy group there too?

where did I say that christians should be infailable? i mean. jeesh, it would put the whole confession business out of business if they were. not to mention ferry boats as everyone of christan faith wouldn't need them to walk across the sound (although given the amount of pollution, i'm surprised that isn't already possible, but if everyone could do it, how would you be able to know who the choosen were? hm. things to ponder). what i have been arguing against is instituting institutionally supported biggotry because of a bunch of smalled minded individuals think its alright since their religion says so. considering that the same passage in the bible that supposedly condemns homosexuality also condemns eating pork and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics i'm surprised we're not arguing against providing medical treatment of people that eat bacon and those who have the audacity to wear shirts that might be a blend of cotton and polyester. well, strike that, i'm not really suprised. i mean it'd be awfully difficult to justify denying people basic things like visitation rights when you're loved one is sick if you didn't have religion to hide behind.