Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
In the latest round of 'conscientious objector' legislation, Michigan has passed legislation allowing doctors to refuse to treat patients they disapprove of.
My blood's boiling at this. So I'm indebted to BartCop, for providing the cogent reaction I'm incapable of:
Wait, what about big-nosed Jews?
Do they have to treat big-nosed Jews if they don't want to?
How about faggots and square dancers? Who wants to work on them?
And, as always, do the niggers get singled out for special treatment?
What about dark people from civilized countries, and foreigners in general?
Surely those lazy Mexicans aren't exempt, right? Who wants to work on them?
Old people sometimes have skin like a crocodile - do they have to treat them?
What about screaming kids with runny noses? Who wants that?
And Catholics - nobody likes a wacko Catholic, right?
Oh, the Catholics started this, so they'll be acceptable.
I think the only people who should be treated when they're sick are good-looking, straight white people between the ages of 12 and however old I am at the time.
Read the full text of the Act here.
My blood's boiling at this. So I'm indebted to BartCop, for providing the cogent reaction I'm incapable of:
Wait, what about big-nosed Jews?
Do they have to treat big-nosed Jews if they don't want to?
How about faggots and square dancers? Who wants to work on them?
And, as always, do the niggers get singled out for special treatment?
What about dark people from civilized countries, and foreigners in general?
Surely those lazy Mexicans aren't exempt, right? Who wants to work on them?
Old people sometimes have skin like a crocodile - do they have to treat them?
What about screaming kids with runny noses? Who wants that?
And Catholics - nobody likes a wacko Catholic, right?
Oh, the Catholics started this, so they'll be acceptable.
I think the only people who should be treated when they're sick are good-looking, straight white people between the ages of 12 and however old I am at the time.
Read the full text of the Act here.
posted by Management at 1:06 PM
4 Comments:
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
(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.
HB-5006, As Passed House, April 21, 2004
SUBSTITUTE FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 5006
(As amended April 21, 2004)
A bill to provide standards for personnel policies to
protect the right of conscience of health care providers who
conscientiously object to providing or participating in certain
health care services under certain circumstances; to provide for
protection from certain liability; and to provide for penalties
and remedies.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
1 Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
2 "conscientious objector policy act".
3 Sec. 3. As used in this act:
4 (a) "Contraceptive medication [ ]" means a medication
5 [ ] approved for the prevention of pregnancy that is taken
6 or used in advance of sexual intercourse.
7 (b) "Health care provider" means a person licensed or
8 registered under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA
House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004
1 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, a student of a health facility,
2 or another person who is employed by or under contract to a
3 health facility and directly participates in the provision of a
4 health care service. Health care provider does not include a
5 sanitarian or a veterinarian.
6 (c) "Health care service" means the provision or withdrawal
7 of, or research or experimentation involving, a medical
8 diagnosis, treatment, procedure, diagnostic test, device,
9 medication, drug, or other substance intended to affect the
10 physical or mental condition of an individual. Health care
11 service does not include the provision of a contraceptive
12 medication [ ].
13 (d) "Health facility" means any of the following:
14 (i) A clinical laboratory.
15 (ii) A county medical care facility.
16 (iii) A freestanding surgical outpatient facility.
17 (iv) A home for the aged.
18 (v) A hospital.
19 (vi) A nursing home.
20 (vii) A hospice.
21 (viii) A hospice residence.
22 (ix) A facility or agency listed in subparagraphs (i) to (vi)
23 located in a university, college, or other educational
24 institution.
25 (x) A private physician's office.
26 (xi) A medical clinic.
27 (xii) A public or private institution that provides health
House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004
1 care services to an individual.
2 (xiii) A teaching institution that provides health care
3 services to an individual.
4 (xiv) A pharmacy that provides health care services to an
5 individual.
6 (xv) A corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, limited
7 liability company, or other legal entity that provides health
8 care services to an individual.
9 (e) "Medical director" means that term as defined in section
10 20906 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20906.
11 (f) "Participate" or "participating" means, at a minimum, to
12 counsel, refer, perform, administer, prescribe, dispense, treat,
13 withhold, withdraw, diagnose, test, evaluate, train, research,
14 prepare, or provide medical advice or material or physical
15 assistance in a health care service.
16 (g) "Person" means a person as defined in section 1106 of the
17 public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.1106, or a governmental
18 entity.
19 (h) "Public health emergency" means a condition or situation
20 that presents an immediate threat to the public health, safety,
21 or welfare and requires immediate action to preserve the public
22 health, safety, or welfare.
23 Sec. 5. (1) A health care provider may object as a matter
24 of conscience to providing or participating in a health care
25 service on [ ] ethical, moral, or religious grounds.
26 (2) A health care provider shall notify his or her employer
27 in writing of a conscientious objection described in subsection
House Bill No. 5006 (H-3) as amended April 21, 2004
1 (1). The written notice shall be given directly to his or her
2 supervisor and shall include a statement explaining his or her
3 conscientious objection and the health care service or services
4 to which he or she specifically objects to providing or
5 participating in under this act.
6 (3) A health care provider may assert his or her
7 conscientious objection under any of the following conditions:
8 (a) Upon being offered employment.
9 (b) At the time the health care provider adopts [an]
10 [ ] ethical, moral, or religious belief system that
11 conflicts with participation in a health care service.
12 (c) Within 24 hours after he or she is asked or has received
13 notice that he or she is scheduled to participate in a health
14 care service to which he or she conscientiously objects.
15 Sec. 7. (1) An employer shall retain a health care
16 provider's written objection filed under section 5 for the
17 duration of the health care provider's employment. The written
18 objection is valid for the duration of the health care provider's
19 employment or until rescinded by the health care provider in
20 writing.
21 (2) Except as otherwise provided under subsection (3), after
22 receiving a written objection pursuant to section 5, an employer
23 shall not require the objecting health care provider to provide
24 or participate in the objectionable health care service.
25 (3) If a health care provider asserts an objection under
26 section 5 less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled health care
27 service, the employer shall make a reasonable effort to exclude
1 the health care provider from participating in the health care
2 service or find a replacement for the health care provider. If a
3 replacement is unavailable and the health care provider cannot be
4 excluded, the employer may require the health care provider to
5 provide or participate in that health care service.
6 (4) An employer shall not refuse employment or staff
7 privileges to a health care provider who has exercised his or her
8 right to assert an objection to providing or participating in a
9 health care service under section 5, unless participation in that
10 health care service is indicated as a part of the normal course
11 of duties in the posting of the availability of the position for
12 employment or staff privileges.
13 (5) A medical school or other institution for the education
14 or training of a health care provider shall not refuse admission
15 to an individual or penalize that individual because the
16 individual has filed in writing with the medical school or other
17 institution a conscientious objection to participating in a
18 health care service under this act.
19 Sec. 9. Except as provided in section 11, a health care
20 provider's objection to providing or participating in a health
21 care service as described in section 5 shall not be the basis for
22 1 or more of the following:
23 (a) Civil liability to another person.
24 (b) Criminal action.
25 (c) Administrative or licensure action.
26 (d) Termination of employment or refusal of staff privileges
27 at a health facility.
1 Sec. 11. (1) The protections afforded to a health care
2 provider under this act do not apply under any of the following
3 circumstances:
4 (a) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to a
5 health care service if a patient's condition, in the reasonable
6 medical judgment of an attending physician or medical director,
7 requires immediate action and no other qualified health care
8 provider is available to provide that health care service.
9 (b) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to
10 providing or participating in a health care service in the event
11 of a public health emergency.
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.
27 (3) This act does not relieve a health care provider from a
1 duty that exists under another statute or other law pertaining to
2 current standards of acceptable health care practice and
3 procedure to inform a patient of the patient's condition,
4 prognosis, and risks of receiving health care services for the
5 condition.
6 Sec. 13. (1) A civil action for damages or reinstatement of
7 employment, or both, may be brought against a person, including,
8 but not limited to, a governmental agency, health facility, or
9 other employer, for penalizing or discriminating against a health
10 care provider, including, but not limited to, penalizing or
11 discriminating in hiring, promotion, transfer, a term or
12 condition of employment, licensing, or granting of staff
13 privileges or appointments, because that health care provider has
14 asserted an objection to participating in a health care service
15 under section 5. Civil damages may be awarded equal to the
16 amount of proven damages and attorney fees. A civil action filed
17 under this subsection may include a petition for injunctive
18 relief against a person alleged to have penalized or
19 discriminated against a health care provider as described in this
20 subsection.
21 (2) A person who violates this act is responsible for a state
22 civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a fine of not more
23 than $1,000.00 for each day the violation continues or a fine of
24 not more than $1,000.00 for each occurrence.
http://www.bigbrassblog.com/2005/03/conscience.html
Conscience
The Michigan House passed some interesting legislation yesterday that would allow health care providers to refuse treatment to individuals on "moral, ethical or religious grounds."
Not only does this violate the rights of women in need of birth control and reproductive health services, but there are other implications as well:
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.
This is telling. The Michigan legislature thinks it is perfectly acceptable for a healthcare provider to deny medical treatment to homosexuals.
The supporters of this bill have their own take on the situation:
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.
I love how "religious freedom" has been redefined as the freedom to deny people basic healthcare if they don't follow your religious beliefs.
It's also interesting that they specify that individual healthcare providers have this right, not only institutional ones. So not only are you allowed to form your own We Hate Women and Gays Pharmacy--you're also allowed to refuse to treat women and gays while you're in the employ of the Decent and Sane Pharmacy.
This type of legislation raises some interesting questions.
If someone has a moral objection to anesthesia, can they give a desperate person unanesthetized surgery?
If a Jehovah's Witness is a healthcare provider of some kind, can they deny people blood transfusions?
If a conservative Christian is a healthcare provider, can he refuse to treat a woman without her husband's permission? The Bible does say that the husband is the head of the wife, after all.
Can a doctor refuse to give a woman in labor an epidural to relieve her pain because of its possible effect on the baby?
Can an Orthodox Jew refuse to treat a dying woman who happens to be menstruating?
I remember once reading a National Geographic article by an American woman who lived in Japan and whose friend (also American) had given birth there; the friend, when she asked for pain relief medication during childbirth, was chided by the doctor for her selfishness which was unbecoming in a woman. If such a doctor from such a culture came to the States, would he be within his rights to refuse medication to the woman in labor?
How about if we apply this principle outside the realm of healthcare? Does a biology teacher have the right to refuse to teach evolution? Can a Hindu work at a fast-food place but refuse to serve beef? Can a Republican politician refuse to lie?
Or, you know, maybe we could all exercise our common sense and say that if your conscience gets in the way of an integral aspect of your work, you should choose another line of work.
ETA: This is actually a bill that was passed in April 2004 in the Michigan House but killed in committee in the Senate; in light of recent trend like this one, there's been talk about how the bill might get re-introduced.
Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01
Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, which defends pharmacists. "More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."
An increasing number of clashes are occurring in drugstores across the country. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.
"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."
That is what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear really spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy down the street from their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.
"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 44, who with her husband had long ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that decision for us? I was outraged. At the same time, I was sad that we had to do this. But I was scared. I didn't know what we were going to do."
Supporters of pharmacists' rights see the trend as a welcome expression of personal belief. Women's groups see it as a major threat to reproductive rights and one of the latest manifestations of the religious right's growing political reach -- this time into the neighborhood pharmacy.
"This is another indication of the current political atmosphere and climate," said Rachel Laser of the National Women's Law Center in Washington. "It's outrageous. It's sex discrimination. It prevents access to a basic form of health care for women. We're going back in time."
The issue could intensify further if the Food and Drug Administration approves the sale of the Plan B morning-after pill without a prescription -- a controversial step that would likely make pharmacists the primary gatekeeper.
The question of health care workers refusing to provide certain services first emerged among doctors, nurses and other health care workers over abortions. The trend began to spread to pharmacists with the approval of the morning-after pill and physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, with support from such organizations as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Pharmacists for Life International, which claims 1,600 members on six continents. Its members are primarily in the United States, Canada and Britain.
"Our group was founded with the idea of returning pharmacy to a healing-only profession. What's been going on is the use of medication to stop human life. That violates the ideal of the Hippocratic oath that medical practitioners should do no harm," said Karen L. Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in Delhi, Ohio, for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions.
No one knows exactly how often that is happening, but cases have been reported across the country, including in California, Washington, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina. Advocates on both sides say the refusals appear to be spreading, often surfacing only in the rare instances when women file complaints.
Pharmacists are regulated by state laws and can face disciplinary action from licensing boards. But the only case that has gotten that far involves Neil T. Noesen, who in 2002 refused to fill a University of Wisconsin student's birth control pill prescription at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., or transfer the prescription elsewhere. An administrative judge last month recommended Noesen be required to take ethics classes, alert future employers to his beliefs and pay what could be as much as $20,000 to cover the costs of the legal proceedings. The state pharmacy board will decide whether to impose that penalty next month.
"He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected."
Wisconsin is one of at least 11 states considering "conscience clause" laws that would protect pharmacists such as Noesen. Four states already have laws that specifically allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs. At the same time, at least four states are considering laws that would explicitly require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions.
The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way.
"We don't have a profession of robots. We have a profession of humans. We have to acknowledge that individual pharmacists have individual beliefs," said Susan C. Winckler, the association's vice president for policy and communications. "What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy."
The alternative system can include making sure another pharmacist is on duty who can take over or making sure there is another pharmacy nearby willing to fill the prescription, Winckler said. "The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their medication," she said.
Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions.
"That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.' What's that saying? 'I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?' It's the same thing," said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.
Large pharmacy chains, including Walgreens, Wal-Mart and CVS, have instituted similar policies that try to balance pharmacists' and customers' rights.
"We obviously do have pharmacists with individual moral and ethical beliefs. When it does happen, the pharmacist is asked to notify the manager that they have decided not to fill the prescription, and the manager has the obligation to make sure the customer has access to the prescription by another means," said Tiffany Bruce, a spokeswoman for Walgreens. "We have to respect the pharmacist, but we have to also respect the right of the person to receive the prescription."
Women's advocates say such policies are impractical, especially late at night in emergency situations involving the morning-after pill, which must be taken within 72 hours. Even in non-urgent cases, poor women have a hard time getting enough time off work or money to go from one pharmacy to another. Young women, who are often frightened and unsure of themselves, may simply give up when confronted by a judgmental pharmacist.
"What is a woman supposed to do in rural America, in places where there may only be one pharmacy?" asked Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which is launching a campaign today to counter the trend. "It's a slap in the face to women."
By the time Suzanne Richards, 21, finally got another pharmacy to fill her morning-after pill prescription -- after being rejected by a drive-through Brooks Pharmacy in Laconia, N.H., one late Saturday night in September -- the 72 hours had long passed.
"When he told me he wouldn't fill it, I just pulled over in the parking lot and started crying," said Richards, a single mother of a 3-year-old who runs her own cleaning service. "I just couldn't believe it. I was just trying to be responsible."
In the end, Richards turned out not to be pregnant, and Pulz was able to obtain her prescription last June directly from her doctor, though she does not think she was pregnant, either.
"I was lucky," Pulz said. "I can sympathize with someone who feels strongly and doesn't want to be involved. But they should just step out of the way and not interfere with someone else's decision. It's just not right."
Post a Comment
<< Home