New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by Haruchai on 17:06 30 Mar 2005
http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes#
Quote:
(Lansing, Michigan) 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 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.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
-----
Thoughts? Though I stay away from political threads, and probably won't say my opinion even here, I'd like to get feedback on this.
http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes#
Quote:
(Lansing, Michigan) 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 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.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
-----
Thoughts? Though I stay away from political threads, and probably won't say my opinion even here, I'd like to get feedback on this.
New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by Arislyn on 07:58 31 Mar 2005
I think I'll refrain from comment on this. I'll say I just disagree with the bill.
I think I'll refrain from comment on this. I'll say I just disagree with the bill.
New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by NoonChild on 10:33 31 Mar 2005
I dont think you're gonna get too many detailed responses about something so controvertial Haru, if you are not prepared to put up your own views.
Personally this bill scares me a little so I agree with Ari.
I dont think you're gonna get too many detailed responses about something so controvertial Haru, if you are not prepared to put up your own views.
Personally this bill scares me a little so I agree with Ari.
New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by din on 10:46 31 Mar 2005
silly,
i was thinking about it from the retail point of view, i've ejected people from my (work) store for being verbally abusive, for spitting on the floor, and riding skates around. each of thiese things either causes a direct loss to the store. I can not see being able to rationalize kicking somebody out because of sexual orientation on those grounds.
On the other hand. Owning a business I would hate to /have/ to work for somebody that I don't want to regardless of the reason, I shouldn't need a reason.
Personally, orientation, religion, etc aren't reasons for me, but if i was devout in a particular religion and what I was asked to do directly contridicted my ethos I think I wouldn't do it.
I believe there should be a exact seperation of church and state in government and law, but I do not think that individuals should also be forced to seperate them in their lives .. slightly off-topic but you all will make the connection .. public opinion and the market take care of a lot of that itself.
silly,
i was thinking about it from the retail point of view, i've ejected people from my (work) store for being verbally abusive, for spitting on the floor, and riding skates around. each of thiese things either causes a direct loss to the store. I can not see being able to rationalize kicking somebody out because of sexual orientation on those grounds.
On the other hand. Owning a business I would hate to /have/ to work for somebody that I don't want to regardless of the reason, I shouldn't need a reason.
Personally, orientation, religion, etc aren't reasons for me, but if i was devout in a particular religion and what I was asked to do directly contridicted my ethos I think I wouldn't do it.
I believe there should be a exact seperation of church and state in government and law, but I do not think that individuals should also be forced to seperate them in their lives .. slightly off-topic but you all will make the connection .. public opinion and the market take care of a lot of that itself.
New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by Haruchai on 16:54 31 Mar 2005
Well, I just kinda threw it out there to see what responses I would get, NC. I'm not looking for a flamewar, but I know that everyone will have an opinion, one way or the other, about it. *shrugs*
I tend to ride the fence on a lot of political issues. It drives a lot of my friends crazy. See, my views tend to sway huge degrees depending on each individual circumstance. Unfortunately, most laws are written as blanket statements, or are targetted to something specific and then get twisted into something they're not.
I'm very much a person who says, "I support this... except in this and this and this situation...."
It's almost impossible for lawmakers to take into consideration every contingency, This, unfortunately, always leaves somebody high and dry.
By and large, I don't agree with this proposal. Still, for every doctor that might refuse a certain treatment/procedure/whatever, there are probably a dozen who'll do it in a heartbeat. It sounds horribly, horribly wrong, but in practice it may not be so bad. Especially since emergency care isn't affected, and they have 24 hours to make their objection.
Still, it does open a can of worms for doctors to refuse things on grounds that might be pretty flimsy. *shrugs*
Like I said, I like to take any situation and judge it on a case by case basis. I could agree with this bill on some things, and not on others.
I'm so wishy-washy!
Well, I just kinda threw it out there to see what responses I would get, NC. I'm not looking for a flamewar, but I know that everyone will have an opinion, one way or the other, about it. *shrugs*
I tend to ride the fence on a lot of political issues. It drives a lot of my friends crazy. See, my views tend to sway huge degrees depending on each individual circumstance. Unfortunately, most laws are written as blanket statements, or are targetted to something specific and then get twisted into something they're not.
I'm very much a person who says, "I support this... except in this and this and this situation...."
It's almost impossible for lawmakers to take into consideration every contingency, This, unfortunately, always leaves somebody high and dry.
By and large, I don't agree with this proposal. Still, for every doctor that might refuse a certain treatment/procedure/whatever, there are probably a dozen who'll do it in a heartbeat. It sounds horribly, horribly wrong, but in practice it may not be so bad. Especially since emergency care isn't affected, and they have 24 hours to make their objection.
Still, it does open a can of worms for doctors to refuse things on grounds that might be pretty flimsy. *shrugs*
Like I said, I like to take any situation and judge it on a case by case basis. I could agree with this bill on some things, and not on others.
I'm so wishy-washy!
New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by NoonChild on 04:01 01 Apr 2005
He he
Im so like that too. I think it's because when I was younger I accepted anything vaguely intelligent as right until someone else showed me objections and I'd go "Oh yeah I believe the opposite now". So Im careful to make sure I can see it from both sides before I state my opinion.
I think this bill might not make much practical difference as only a very small amount of doctors are going to want to refuse treatment. However the principal disturbs me as I think of doctors as one group of people to whom we can tell the truth without being judged. If you know someone might make a moral judgement you might be reticent about approaching them with a problem.
If a gay person couldn't find treatment anywhere because of this bill would that conflict with any other laws about everyone needing a certain basic level of care? It seems weird to me to say it is perfectly legal to be gay but you might not be protected by the law in all circumstances if you are gay.
He he
Im so like that too. I think it's because when I was younger I accepted anything vaguely intelligent as right until someone else showed me objections and I'd go "Oh yeah I believe the opposite now". So Im careful to make sure I can see it from both sides before I state my opinion.I think this bill might not make much practical difference as only a very small amount of doctors are going to want to refuse treatment. However the principal disturbs me as I think of doctors as one group of people to whom we can tell the truth without being judged. If you know someone might make a moral judgement you might be reticent about approaching them with a problem.
If a gay person couldn't find treatment anywhere because of this bill would that conflict with any other laws about everyone needing a certain basic level of care? It seems weird to me to say it is perfectly legal to be gay but you might not be protected by the law in all circumstances if you are gay.
New bill up for proposal in Michigan - by draconknight on 12:15 04 Apr 2005
same hear i tend to listen to both before i say the verdict and as Hri said it all goes by the cicumstance
same hear i tend to listen to both before i say the verdict and as Hri said it all goes by the cicumstance