Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

[meegbear]

(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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

:grr:

http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes

[LiberalFighter]

1. I'm all for not treating republicans

[demnan]

2. What kind of a doctor would you be

if you refused to treat someone based on their sexual orientation? AIDS postive people I can almost see, although I think that would be detestable, but gays?

I know a gay guy who is a hemophiliac. If he had a problem and couldn't get treatment he might immediately die.

[readmoreoften]

6. I'm assuming you don't really mean that

The whole 'AIDS positive people I can almost see" comment.

So you can see a doctor refusing to treat an AIDS patient? Why, is AIDS an 'immoral disease'? What about a gay man who got HIV through an accidental needle-stick while working at a hospice?

What about a transsexual? Only if s/he is seeking surgery? What about treatment for complications like infection? What about for a systemic yeast infection caused by the antibiotics caused by the infection caused by the surgery?

Should we have doctors that refuse to treat all veneral disease? Veneral disease only among singles?

Doctors that refuse patients who smoke or drink?

So if I visit my partner in the hospital will it be a risky move... because what if one of the members of the surgical team changes their mind?

Should their discrimination be limited to diseases that they perceive to have been caused by the patient's immorality? Or can they characterize whole segments of the population as immoral and then refuse to treat them?

And when the law is overturned when we regain control of the government, can we revoke their licenses and throw them in jail for murder?

[Tux]

3. We're all sinners

Except the welathy who would get the best medical treatment but the rest of us won't get anything. Neocon 101.

[SaveElmer]

4. Has Granholm said anything about this ?

Will she veto ?

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Oh, boy. "We don't treat coloreds here", so the man who

invented blood transfusion dies on his way to the 'right' hospital.

Did the Samaritan ask if the traveler was gay? He already knew he was of the wrong religion. What is the lesson in that story, if not that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO YOU ARE!

[davidinalameda]

7. this needs to be posted in the Michigan forum as well

this is just disgusting--the Michigan people need to know about this and contact the governor and make sure it's vetoed

[Langley85]

8. "Doctors"??

Just when I thought no one would come up with anything more evil than denying someone the right to visit their own partner in the hospital, something like this comes along. The term "conscientious objector" is laughable. There is nothing conscientious about refusing possibly vital medical assistance to someone based on their sexual orientation, and it just goes to show the way these christian conservatives don't have the balls to just come out and say WE HATE GAYS AND HOPE THEY DIE when they make it obvious with their every action.

[xchrom]

9. well, it doesn't get much more barbaric than that, does it?