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

[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.