Posted on 05/03/2004 8:18:04 AM PDT by presidio9
Should a physician be allowed to turn you away if you're gay? Sounds like a no-brainer—but not if you live in Michigan.
Michigan's House of Representatives passed a bill last week that permits doctors and other health care providers to walk away from a procedure, treatment, or prescription that violates their religious beliefs. The Conscientious Objector Policy Act, which was pushed by the state's Catholic Conference—and opposed by Michigan's Medical Society—clearly applies to abortions and morning-after pills. But its broad wording could cover other medical situations, such as stem-cell research. The bill bar physicians from denying patients access to contraception, and it forbids discrimination against groups mentioned in the state civil rights law.
Guess which group is excluded from that statute?
"I believe there's a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through," said Chris Kolb, Michigan's only openly gay representative. Supporters of the bill are quick to deny this contention—but also loath to add sexual orientation to the bill's protected categories. "I don't think this legislation is the way to address that," Scott Hummel, a Republican lawmaker, told CNN. The Michigan statehouse is dominated by Republicans, which is why Kolb thinks the bill will pass the state senate as well. But the governor, Jennifer Granholm, is a Democrat. She's regarded as gay friendly, but Kolb says he can't be sure she will veto the legislation. Granholm's office released a statement declaring the bill "too broad" as it stands, but adding, "We are sympathetic to this issue and will work with the legislature to develop a version . . . that we all support."
Perhaps the most disturbing news of all was a Detroit News poll asking whether the bill should become law even though "some fear this means gays and lesbians could be refused treatment." Over 53 percent of respondents replied in the affirmative.
Laws exempting doctors from performing abortions exist in some 40 states, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But these more sweeping statutes are a frightening new weapon for fundamentalists. In Illinois, the Health Care Right of Conscience Act prohibits discrimination not against patients but against doctors who refuse to offer a broad range of treatments for religious reasons. In neighboring Wisconsin, the governor vetoed a bill on April 21 that would have protected physicians who fail to advise patients of their treatment options, provide a referral, or render care if a life is at risk. Even the instructions in a living will could have been ignored if they violated a doctor's beliefs.
A right-of-conscience statute in Mississippi has the unexpected distinction of protecting patients from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. That's more than you can say for Michigan. And the issue is far from academic. During the early years of AIDS, polls showed that a majority of doctors didn't want to treat gay men. Things have changed for the better—or have they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't say anything about denying treatment based on sexual orientation. In any event, I doubt this would make much of a difference in an emergency situation. Hospitals are generally required to provide emergency treatment, no matter what.
Damn straight it's a no-brainer. Doctors shouldn't be forced to work around aerosolized, HIV-infected bodily by-products unless they are given full moonsuit protection -- which they are not. I've known several doctors who have quit rather than take the risk, and dozens of others who have seriously discussed quiting. And I don't hang out with them all that much.
How dare over half of the poll respondents believe that doctors may exercise their own moral choice!! [/dripping sarcasm off]
They should be forced to do whatever we demand, and; should we pass free medical coverage, do it without compensation.
If they wanted to have a conscience, or free will, they shouldn't have been born in the US.
That's great. The liberals throw in some false premise into the question and it still passes. I guess most felt that 'some fear' didn't hold much water. A sign that people can think for themselves.
I was asking myself the same question while I was watching (in disgust) the "March for women's lives"(paging George Orwell) and there was some lesbian speaking on her "right" to have an abortion.
I was so confused.
Interesting question. We don't have a problem with mental disorders such as homoerotic attraction but we do have a problem with doctors who are pro-life? I'd say that means things haven't changed for the better.
If there were a doctor who would refuse to treat a man because he were homosexual, I would never go to that doctor. Doctors are in the business of saving lives, no matter how they feel about the life they save. It applies to gays, rapists, murders, etc.
Actually, there really is no fear that doctors will stop treating homosexuals. This is yet another in the long list of examples about how homosexuals think everything is about sex.
Shalom.
That's a risk doctors take, as with getting malaria or meningitis or hepititis or TB or whatever. They have ways of minimizing their risk and they can employ them to minimize their risk of contracting AIDS.
I have no sympathy for any doctor who would refuse to treat a sick person, no matter how deviant. I also have no sympathy for the homos trying to turn an obviously pro-life measure to be something about them.
To the homos, everything is about sex.
Shalom.
Doctors don't dictate our business. Why do you wish to dictate theirs?
Jim Kolbe is also gay. Does the root "kolb" mean homosexual?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.