Talk amongst yourselves

[ebonlock]

Oh you just had to see this coming:

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.


C'mon, everybody, sing along, "The Inquisition, what a show! The Inquistion, here we go! I know you're wishin' that we'd go awaaaaaaay..."

Comments

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I see signs in plenty of stores that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

How is this different?

I dunno', I see a bit difference between buying a loaf of bread somewhere and getting operated on, but maybe that's just me.

You don't have the right to force a doctor to treat you.

So doctors are now held at gunpoint and forced to care for individuals in ways at odds with their moral upbringing, or the religion they chose within the past month...week...day? I wasn't aware that such a travesty of justice was occurring right here in our own country. Ah, the humanity!

If you can explain to me why it is necessary to create a law this vague and open-ended, such that one could then refuse to care for a homosexual or perhaps an unwed mother, in our current society I'll be happy to listen. What long list of religious persecutions caused the people of Michigan to suddenly decide that this was necessary? Have the people even been consulted? What's the impetus here? I really would like to know.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

I dunno', I see a bit difference between buying a loaf of bread somewhere and getting operated on, but maybe that's just me.

Loaf of bread or operation, you still are paying somebody else to provide a service.

Last I checked, in a free market economy, the seller of a good or the provider of a service has the right to determine the manner in which he or she sells or provides it, up to and including determining his or her clientele.

So doctors are now held at gunpoint and forced to care for individuals in ways at odds with their moral upbringing, or the religion they chose within the past month...week...day? I wasn't aware that such a travesty of justice was occurring right here in our own country. Ah, the humanity!

I hope you won't mind if I ignore the hyperbole and cut to the meat of the matter.

There is increasing concern among Catholic health-care providers that it is only a matter of time before contraception and abortion will be defined as essential health services, to the point where doctors will be required by law to provide them, regardless of doctors' objections of conscience. It is difficult to be completely dismissive of this concern, given that a Catholic health-care organization in California was recently required to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortions to its employees. It's not a long road from having the state define the relationship you must have with your employees, to having the state define the relationship you must have with your customers, too.

Thus I would hazard to guess that this law is forward-looking: it is aimed at preventing a problem rather than correcting one. I would also hazard to guess that it was not drafted with gays in mind.

If you can explain to me why it is necessary to create a law this vague and open-ended, such that one could then refuse to care for a homosexual or perhaps an unwed mother, in our current society I'll be happy to listen.

Sure.

Forcing a doctor to treat a patient he objects to treating, or forcing him to provide a treatment he objects to providing, is a violation of the doctor's property rights and religious freedoms. This is a far greater evil than occasionally forcing homosexuals and/or unwed mothers to change doctors.

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Last I checked, in a free market economy, the seller of a good or the provider of a service has the right to determine the manner in which he or she sells or provides it, up to and including determining his or her clientele.

We're a restricted free market economy. Denny's was successfully sued by a black patron, even with the "Right to refuse service to anyone" sign. Also, a true free market would not have rules against such things as monopolies.

I also dispute having to treat people as a violation of property rights. Is there property involved aside from the doctor's time? I guess that market freedom says that doctors do not have to treat everybody who comes to them; by the same token, they can be fired for not giving said treatment. Or they can freely choose to practice unlicensed. I believe that doctors, along with some others, are viewed as providing important enough services that those services are required to be universal (like police/fire departments, who are not allowed to go on strike). Actually, I think you can argue that denying medical services is paramount to denying part of that "right to life, liberty, and happiness".

And, even religious freedoms have a limit (try claiming that paying taxes is against your religion. It doesn't work. Freedom for human sacrifice is also out.).

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Ooh jimweasal you put that so well all I can add is "hear, hear!"

Well, ok, that and:
James Madison, 1785

"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

So, tell me: what rights are being invaded, and to whom do they belong?

That vibration you felt, by the way, was Madison rolling over in his grave when you invoked his words in support of, basically, socialized medicine.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

That vibration you felt, by the way, was Madison rolling over in his grave when you invoked his words in support of, basically, socialized medicine.


Must the bugaboo of "socialized medicine" be brought up in discussions of this kind? None of us is arguing for that (though I will admit I have no deep seated bias against the concept) and you know it. We're talking about a law that would make legal the practice of discrimination within the medical profession with (in its current wording) no repurcussions for the individual or institution engaging in it.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

We're talking about a law that would make legal the practice of discrimination within the medical profession with (in its current wording) no repurcussions for the individual or institution engaging in it.

I will ask you again:

What rights are being violated by this law, and to whom do they belong?

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

What are rights? Wherein are they derived?

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

I also dispute having to treat people as a violation of property rights. Is there property involved aside from the doctor's time?

Well, you tell me: before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, did white slave owners violate their slaves' property rights? After all, no property was involved besides the slaves' time, right?

Forcing somebody to perform a service against their will is basically a kind of indentured servitude. It violates the most fundamental of all property rights, namely the right of self-ownership.

(This, incidentally, is also why income taxation and the War On Some Drugs are so manifestly wrong. However well-intended these things might be, they also violate that basic right to self-ownership.)

Actually, I think you can argue that denying medical services is paramount to denying part of that "right to life, liberty, and happiness".

You can make that argument, but you'll be wrong.

The preamble to the Constitution guarantees you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not guarantee you the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on someone else's time or dime.

When Doctor Dan declines to provide treatment to Patient Phil, Phil isn't being denied health care. He's merely being denied Dan's services, to which he has no right in the first place. Phil is free to contract with another physician, or not, as he sees fit.

And, even religious freedoms have a limit

I always find it terribly ironic when people who would normally storm the ramparts over the sanctity of the Establishment Clause suddenly wax grave about the limits of religious freedoms when a more consistent devotion to the First Amendment would permit physicians to decline to perform abortions.

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Slavery falls under the right to liberty. They had no right to liberty, not no right to self-ownership. They are delineated separately in the 14th ammendment; otherwise, they could simply omit "liberty" from the wording of the document. So, I disagree that self-ownership is any kind of property right.

Also, can you referece somewhere where time=property?

According to the 5th ammendment: "..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". So, assuming that time does equal property, it *can* be legally taken as long as it's justly compensated. And, a hour of time is not the same as indentured servitude. It's like equating a punch with murder - it's a serious matter of degree.

Oh, actually, if self-ownership is a property right, then you can kill people "for public use", let's say gladitorial games, as long as just compensation was given.

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

A few things, more or less at random:

One: Because I'm an ignorant bigot vis-a-vis people who don't think the same was as I do, I generally resort to ad hominem attacks. But I won't this time cos it isn't my LJ.

Two: Your "going to the doctor is like going to the supermarket" analogy is a good analogy; but the best thing about it is that it shows that good analogies often suck when used as a tool to aid in the application of critical thinking. Medical services, especially emergency medical services, are not like consumer goods and services. I can think of a lot of ways in which they are different, but it should suffice to say that market forces do not have the same effect on them that they have on the price of bread. It's not ardous to get a job selling bread. Bread salesmen don't have to pay huge sums to insure against malpractice. People who buy bread don't generally need to be subsidized in their purchase by their employers and are not, as a result of that subsidy, limited to certain purveyors of fine bread products. &c.

Three: The Constitution of the US certainly DOES guarantee rights on someone else's time or dime: to wit, the people who are elected and take an oath to uphold and enact it.

Four: I don't see the irony in that last, rather long sentence of yours. In fact, I'm have difficulty making sense of it. But that's probably related to Point One (above).

Five: I suppose I can appreciate that a doctor might not want to perform an operation on a Wiccan (sorry el). I can also appreciate that a congressman might not want to represent the interests of poor folk. And I can appreciate that a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve bread to Black people or make his place of business accessible to handicapped people. I think, for the sake of consistency, this bill should state: "anyone who has a job doesn't have to perform that job in situations he or she might not like." Because by gum, to do otherwise is a violation of some right or other!

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

A few responses, more or less at random.

One: So noted.

Two: You may be able to think of a lot of ways in which medical services are different from consumer services, but at the end of the day we are left with service providers, the fruits of whose labor Joe Sixpack is not entitled to except on mutually-acceptable terms. See also, Smith, Adam.

Three: A less deliberately-obtuse reading of what I wrote would probably be along lines of: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Yes, there are a lot of people who choose careers in government and are paid to protect our rights; how this is a rebuttal to my point, that the freedoms guaranteed each one of us in the Constitution do not entitle us to violate the equal freedoms of others, is a mystery.

Four: Probably. Short version: it's sort of strange to hear people who'd normally go to the mat for the First Amendment suddenly reverse course when it comes to letting doctors determine their own clientele and/or decline to perform abortions.

Five: "Anyone who has a job doesn't have to et cetera," probably goes too far, since most of us work for somebody else who signs the paycheck and thus makes the rules. But if you think I'm going to balk at repealing stuff like the ADA and a lot of modern civil rights laws, think again.

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

I wasn't being any more obtuse than you. I thought you were implying that the Constitution can take care of rights by itself somehow.

most of us work for somebody else who signs the paycheck and thus makes the rules

I agree. Service providers who work for other people, as many doctors do, provide service in a manner determined by their employers. This law implies that health care professionals can flout the directive of their employers. Why SHOULDN'T this law extend to professions beyond medicine? What makes doctors different? And before you bring up some Free Market reasoning, remember that there is not a surfeit of available medical services out there.

I could go one more round, at least, but what it'll boil down to is that our opinions differ on the definition, and indeed the origin, of "rights" and things of that ilk. And that you believe in the efficacy of a completely free market a la Adam Smith, with whom I have at least a little familiarity.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Service providers who work for other people, as many doctors do, provide service in a manner determined by their employers. This law implies that health care professionals can flout the directive of their employers.

Let me clear up my position on this for you, then.

Scenario #1: Health-care professional in private practice refuses to serve a particular class of patient, and/or perform a particular type of procedure.

Scenario #2: Health-care organization (Kaiser, say), which employs a number of health care professionals, refuses to serve a particular class of patient, and/or perform a particular type of procedure.

Scenario #3: Health-care professional employed by a health-care organization refuses to serve a particular class of patient, and/or perform a particular type of procedure.

Of these three scenarios, exactly none are the business of the government.

Scenarios #2 and #3 are between the employers and the employees. In both cases, I would expect the employees to either abide by the policies of their employers, seek an accomodation with their employers, or find employment elsewhere.

So, in sum: to the extent that this law explicitly enables private practitioners and health-care organizations to determine on their own what treatments they'll provide and to whom, I think it's a good thing. To the extent that it enables health care professionals to flout the policies and directives of their employers with impunity, I think it needs some more work on the legislative drawing board.

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

If you don't believe in income tax, what services do you believe the government ought to provide?

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

If by "government" you mean the federal government, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution seems to be a pretty good list, though I'd probably ditch the Commerce Clause or at least substantially clarify its meaning.

[For, you know, the benefit of those humans who read, Congress shall have the power to... regulate commerce... among the several states, as meaning that Congress can regulate any human activity or endeavor that at any point may have had any relationship, no matter how tenuous, remote, or bizarre, to interstate commerce.]

How would I pay for what was left, after axing and/or privatizing everything not specifically authorized by Section 8? Well, unapportioned federal taxes were illegal before 1913, and until that point we seemed to get by pretty well with tarriffs and use fees. I'm obviously lukewarm at best on the former, but the latter are fine.