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]

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.

Uh that's assuming that Patient Phil has access to another doctor, and or that his insurance will allow him to switch doctors. If Patient Phil lives in Bumfuck, Indiana pop. 150 with a single health care provider within, let's say 30 miles, I think the situation becomes a bit more dire for poor Phil, doesn't it?

And if Doctor Dan finds either Patient Phil, or some procedure that said patient desire or requires, repugnant, why on earth is he in this profession anyway?

Taking this a step further, if the hospital that employs Dr. Dan has a strict policy against turning down people like Patient Phil because he happens to be black, or gay, or Jewish, would we not then be restricting the freedom of this institution to enforce their policy and remove Dr. Dan from his employment? I mean if Dr. Dan works for Planned Parenthood shouldn't his employer and his patients have any expectations of him? Like for instance that maybe he'd be willing to prescribe contraceptive and/or perform an abortion?

Is that what this boils down to really? I mean protecting some theoretical Catholic OB-GYN from having to perform an abortion?

Would you at least concede that this particular law can and should be more carefully worded?