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

[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.