Conscientious Objector Policy Act

[pax]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm

Under this bill, which was passed in Michigan, health care providers (except for emergency providers) may decline to provide health care to anyone on religious or moral grounds.

This seems really wrong to me somehow; I mean, what if you were (say) a black person living in a town of white supremacists, and every doctor in town refused to treat you? How is this going to be helpful or just to anyone?

 

[U2Kitten]

I think what this was meant for was to protect people from being forced to give treatments that are against their beliefs. I've heard of nurses being fired for refusing to help with abortions. Two nurses walked out of the operating room just before a surgery to remove a living, smiling eating Siamese twin. The baby had two heads, both named, and had developed seperate personalities. They also had seperate necks and shoulders and arms, but shared a heart and other internal organs and doctors recommended 'removing' one of the 'heads' to relieve stress on the organs and give the other a chance for a longer life. The nurses objected and felt they were killing a baby. I don't know if they were fired. Also, some scientologists are opposed to blood transfusions. I don't think this is a case of, I hate him so I don't have to treat him.

 

[Scarletwine]

Wow, that is really out there. I can't believe they are enacting state sponsored discrimination bills in this century

Canada is looking better all the time.

 

[pax]

The problem is that this bill, I think, will do far more than prevent cases such as the one U2Kitten mentioned. The bill allows providers to refuse on any religious or moral grounds, meaning that, for example, a doctor could decline to treat an HIV-positive patient because he or she believes HIV is a scourge from God (people do believe it, though thankfully they are a small minority).

One might argue that because medical professionals are highly educated, they are less prone to outright biases. However, I am sure there are a few doctors out there who are bigoted against, say, gay people, Jews, Muslims, persons who are sexually active outside marriage...(the list goes on). While I'm sure that the bill is meant to protect providers in situations such as the one U2Kitten mentioned, I think its provisions are far too broad and might indeed result in some sad situations.

Bottom line, it is not about promoting health and well-being; it is one more way to stigmatize already-stigmatized minorities at the whim of a single person.

 

[anitram]

IMO, if you are so ultra religious that you do not believe in performing certain duties of your work, you picked the wrong job. I work in a lab, and any lab that deals with animals (mice, rabbits, hamsters, etc) or deals with things like stem cells will tell you at the point of your interview, and the PI will point blank ask you whether or not you have objections to working there. If you do, you have no place seeking employment there.

 

[Salome]

IMO, if you are so ultra religious that you do not believe in performing certain duties of your work, you picked the wrong job.

yep, I would guess everyone knows what they are getting themselves into when they decide to taek a certain job

 

[U2Kitten]

But you have to admit now, taking an extra head off a Siamese twin is something no one could have forseen in nursing school.

 

[deep]

you forsaw it

please unlearn that term



conjoined twins is what I believe you meant to say.

 

[U2Kitten]

Oh excuse me if I'm not as politically correct as the rest of you. But I still say, someone should not avoid a career in medicine because one day 10 years from now something like that may come up. That's outrageous.

 

[deep]

Pax,

The article is not that long.

I am going to post it.

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff



Posted: April 21, 2004 8:14 p.m. ET

(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 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.

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.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

After reading the article,

I find it disgusting.

The people who support it have no trouble condemning Islamist extremists for their bigotry.


Yet they use there so call religious / moral beliefs for


Guiltfree Hate.

Shameful!

 

[BVS]

Oh excuse me if I'm not as politically correct as the rest of you. But I still say, someone should not avoid a career in medicine because one day 10 years from now something like that may come up. That's outrageous.

No this law is outrageous. You'll have people denying birth control, denying to help anyone they feel unfit, etc. It's discusting.

You go into to the medical field to help people, not to judge or play God. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work for a place that performs them.

What comes next Policemen get to decide which cases they work on according to their religious beliefs, Firemen get to discriminate which ones they save from a burning building, or maybe we should just start allowing Judges to decide hearings due to his own religious beliefs and throw out the law.

This is f##ked.

 

[BAW]

Well said BVS....if you have a particular religuous belief that would prevent you from carrying out certain duties or procedures, you damn well better find out if you will be required to do them before you are hired. If you have a problem doing it, go somewhere else.

This is disgusting.

 

[melon]

I'm embarrassed by the actions of "Catholic" groups. What an utter shame.

I'm glad that I left Michigan, and that I made my small contribution to their long-running "brain drain" problem, because, with legislation like that, it clearly deserves it.

I've grown so numb from how stupid this nation is becoming...

Melon

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

Welcome to wonderful world of right-wing religious fanatics.
As long as Bush is in office, these groups will continue
to try to control the US. They're in the pocket of Bush
and many other congressmen and women.
Separation of church and state? Now, that's a "liberal"
idea if ever I heard one. ( <-- sarcasm )

 

[beli]

I think this kinda thing could only work in a city. ie Dr A doesnt do, for example, abortions so go to Dr B. Ditto HIV, The Pill for unmarried women, non Anglo-Saxons, etc.

But in the less serviced areas ie rural areas it could make life very very difficult.

Does anybody else remember that Irish teenage girl who was raped and had to go to England to have an abortion because it was against the (religious) law in Eire? Im hoping the developed world, at least, is past this kinda crap.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

No this law is outrageous. You'll have people denying birth control, denying to help anyone they feel unfit, etc. It's discusting.

You go into to the medical field to help people, not to judge or play God. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work for a place that performs them.

Agreed.

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
What comes next Policemen get to decide which cases they work on according to their religious beliefs, Firemen get to discriminate which ones they save from a burning building, or maybe we should just start allowing Judges to decide hearings due to his own religious beliefs and throw out the law.

An excellent point. .

Angela

 

[pax]

I think it's opening up a dangerous precedent to allow every and any health care provider to play moral judge. People think laws like this won't ever turn around and bite them in the ass, but they can. What if an OB refused to treat a woman who was pregnant for the third time because he or she believes it's immoral to have more than 2 children? It could happen under this law. It is worded way too broadly, and that's the least of its problems. I can't believe nobody thinks about this stuff.

 

[U2Kitten]

It's already like that in some ways. Catholic hospitals in the US will not perform abortions or voluntary sterilizations. So maybe nurses who agree with them can get a job there. But there are still extreme situations like the 'twin' story.

Also I think some of you have really grabbed at straws with worst case scenarios that will never happen. Honestly, how many people ask someone's religion before they treat them? Doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath and are not going to deny help to those in need, that's a reach. If you read the article, it clearly states 'with the exception of emergency situations' which means no one's life is going to be at stake over this.

I really don't think this has anything to do with somebody not liking someone or their ethnicity or religion and don't believe anyone would take it to that extreme. I still think this is mostly the thing about not wanting to do things that are against your beliefs, like abortion or Scientologists being against blood trasfusions or Jehovah's Witnesses being against some vaccinations. I also think it is wrong and extreme to say a person who opposes one or two procedures should avoid a medical career all together. There is still a lot of good they can do. When you take up a medical calling, you want to save lives, and if you believe that abortion or removing a head from a twin is killing and against your standards you should not be forced to do it, but they shouldn't have to avoid medicine completely! For example, while volunteering in my daughter's class, we had this Jehovah's Witness boy who wasn't allowed to make holiday decorations. So, we sent him to the room next door to color other pictures while we made them. There are plenty of doctors, nurses and orderlies, so if one doesn't want to do something, send them out of the room. There are others.


For the record, it bothers me that people could feel animosity toward the Catholics for not wanting to perform abortions or sterilizations. I had my kids at a Catholic hospital, and they were very sweet. The nuns knitted little caps for all the babies (regardless of ethnicity or religion, I'm not Catholic) and put them on them to keep the heat in their heads as soon as they are born. They also made little bead bracelets with your last name on them, blue for boys, pink for girls and put them on the babies in the bassinets to avoid baby mixups. They came around and prayed for the babies. They are very good hearted people with only the best intentions. If there are things they don't want to do, it's out of love, not hate. Don't feel harsh animosity toward them because their beliefs are not the same as yours.

*runs and hides before people hate me*

 

[BVS]

It's already like that in some ways. Catholic hospitals in the US will not perform abortions or voluntary sterilizations. So maybe nurses who agree with them can get a job there. But there are still extreme situations like the 'twin' story.

Also I think some of you have really grabbed at straws with worst case scenarios that will never happen. Honestly, how many people ask someone's religion before they treat them? Doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath and are not going to deny help to those in need, that's a reach. If you read the article, it clearly states 'with the exception of emergency situations' which means no one's life is going to be at stake over this.

I really don't think this has anything to do with somebody not liking someone or their ethnicity or religion and don't believe anyone would take it to that extreme. I still think this is mostly the thing about not wanting to do things that are against your beliefs, like abortion or Scientologists being against blood trasfusions or Jehovah's Witnesses being against some vaccinations. I also think it is wrong and extreme to say a person who opposes one or two procedures should avoid a medical career all together. There is still a lot of good they can do. When you take up a medical calling, you want to save lives, and if you believe that abortion or removing a head from a twin is killing and against your standards you should not be forced to do it, but they shouldn't have to avoid medicine completely! For example, while volunteering in my daughter's class, we had this Jehovah's Witness boy who wasn't allowed to make holiday decorations. So, we sent him to the room next door to color other pictures while we made them. There are plenty of doctors, nurses and orderlies, so if one doesn't want to do something, send them out of the room. There are others.

*runs and hides before people hate me*

No ones going to hate you, but I think you are being a bit naive in your assesment of this law.

First of all the twins story you keep going to is an extreme case that any doctor would wrestle regardless of religion. If they keep them alive as they are will they survive or will they die in a few months, or would the removing of one head allow one child to live a normal long life? To me this isn't a question of religion.

If you don't want to perform an abortion then don't work for a place that performs them. It's as easy as that.

But this law will allow people to work at clinics or hospitals that prescribe medications and someone will come along and deny a patient these medications because their religious beliefs do not allow the use of these meds.

Laws are written to take in account worse case senarios, to take in account extreme circumstances if they don't then they allow the abuse of these laws.

This law is flawed in so many ways it's not even funny. I'm glad you have enough faith in people to believe they won't abuse this power, but the fact is history shows they will. Even if just one overzealous fanatic uses it the wrong way then the law has failed.

People going into this field need to think about the possibilities that they will face and they need to choose where they work based on that. The decisions of someone's healthcare should not lie in the hands of someone else's religion.

 

[pax]

Good points made in both of the last recent posts.

Kudos to both of you for keeping it clean.














some people here could learn from you

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Also I think some of you have really grabbed at straws with worst case scenarios that will never happen. Honestly, how many people ask someone's religion before they treat them? Doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath and are not going to deny help to those in need, that's a reach. If you read the article, it clearly states 'with the exception of emergency situations' which means no one's life is going to be at stake over this.

I don't think it's about the religion of the patient, but rather about the religion of the doctor. The law gives doctors the option of refusing treatment to a person because they believe that according to their religion that patient doesn't "deserve" treatment.

I can think of plenty of examples which aren't a "grabbing at straws," but have in actual fact already happened. How about a doctor who refuses to provide birth control to an unmarried woman because he believes premarital sex is wrong? How about a doctor who refuses to help someone addicted to IV drugs because he believes addiction is wrong? How about a doctor who refuses to treat someone who's gay because he thinks homosexuality is wrong? The example everyone will refer to is a doctor refusing to help a woman who wants to have an abortion because he thinks abortion is wrong.

I really don't think this has anything to do with somebody not liking someone or their ethnicity or religion and don't believe anyone would take it to that extreme.

I agree that *most* doctors won't take it to that extreme, but this law will give protection to those who do.

As far as I'm concerned, doctors don't have the right to impose their moral beliefs on their patients. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion then he should firstly choose not to work in a hospital that performs abortions and secondly should refer women wishing to seek abortions to a doctor who can help them. He isn't forced to participate in a procedure he objects to, but equally he isn't forcing a woman to live according to his religious or moral beliefs.

When you take up a medical calling, you want to save lives, and if you believe that abortion or removing a head from a twin is killing and against your standards you should not be forced to do it, but they shouldn't have to avoid medicine completely!

Sad as it may seem, from the med students I went to college with, I would say many don't go into medicine because they really want to help people, but because it pays well, they like the "status" of being a doctor and for some people it's the career their parents wanted for them.

I agree with you, you shouldn't avoid being a doctor because you don't like, for example, abortion. However, you should accept that just because you dislike abortion, that does not give you the right to force your patients to live according to your beliefs.

*runs and hides before people hate me*

I don't hate you. I actually thought your post was pretty interesting.

 

[U2Kitten]

Thanks

But I don't think anyone is forcing their beliefs on anyone if they don't want any part of something they see as wrong. They can still have it done by someone else if they must.

It is sad if someone would become a dr. for money or status, but as paranoid as doctors are about being sued I really doubt they'd deny anyone care if they needed it. The law already has exceptions for emergencies.


Anyway, I am sorry for getting into this. I'm not going to post here anymore, I see the way I feel about things in my heart is not the same as most of you and I don't want to fight or make any enemies, goodbye.

 

[nbcrusader]

You go into to the medical field to help people, not to judge or play God. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't work for a place that performs them.

Look at the flip side. Are we getting to a point where "group x" or "group y" need not apply for medical jobs because of their religious beliefs? Or these groups can apply, as long as they let society or the government define how they practice their religion?



On a separate note, I find the bill's use of "Conscientious Objector" in the title curious given the sporadic draft talk we've seen lately.

 

[Popmartijn]

Look at the flip side. Are we getting to a point where "group x" or "group y" need not apply for medical jobs because of their religious beliefs? Or these groups can apply, as long as they let society or the government define how they practice their religion?

That's already the case. If your religion does not permit you to kill somebody (for whatever reason) and you want to adhere strictly to it, then don't join the Army. When you're a fully practising muslim (or Jew, or Hindu), don't apply for a job at a general meat processing company.
It is your choice to practise your beliefs the way you want it, but you have to take the consequences of your actions. Always!

C ya!

Marty

 

[BVS]

Look at the flip side. Are we getting to a point where "group x" or "group y" need not apply for medical jobs because of their religious beliefs? Or these groups can apply, as long as they let society or the government define how they practice their religion?

The way I look at it if you are a lawyer and you believe the majority of divorce laws today are ridiculous, then you probably wouldn't apply for a high profile divorce attorney.

No one is telling these people how to practice their religion. If my religion didn't allow me to eat pork, do you think I'd become a chef at a Chop House? This law is allowing those to work anywhere they desire but to pick and choose the tasks they'll perform.

Imagine if this applied to every field. As someone in the field of architecture( for the time being) I could tell my boss tomorrow that I will not work on this type of building because I feel imitating past works is immoral or I won't do any work for certain corporations because I believe their practices are wrong and I will not perpetuate their corruption.

Life would be grand if we could create our own job descriptions wouldn't it? People need to take the moral responsibility before they apply for the position.

 

[nbcrusader]

This law is allowing those to work anywhere they desire but to pick and choose the tasks they'll perform.

As I understand the intent of the law, it allows people to opt of non-emergency procedures. My questions was: Should someone forgo a medical career on the basis that they (for example) might be forced to conduct or assist in an elective abortion?

The law already allows for reasonable accommodations for a variety of factors. Narrowly written, I could see this type of law fitting into this category.

 

[Mullen-Girl]

I think it's a horrible law Imagine how people will feel when they go to the doctor and he/she will refuse to treat them. I would feel disturbed.

 

[BVS]

As I understand the intent of the law, it allows people to opt of non-emergency procedures. My questions was: Should someone forgo a medical career on the basis that they (for example) might be forced to conduct or assist in an elective abortion?

The law already allows for reasonable accommodations for a variety of factors. Narrowly written, I could see this type of law fitting into this category.

Why are they working in a place that will perform elective abortions if they know they're job description may call upon them to aid in one?

No one should forgoe a medical career, but they will have to take the reponsibilty to work somewhere that fits into the realm of what they can handle or are willing to do.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It is sad if someone would become a dr. for money or status, but as paranoid as doctors are about being sued I really doubt they'd deny anyone care if they needed it.

That's a good point.

Originally posted by U2Kitten
Anyway, I am sorry for getting into this. I'm not going to post here anymore, I see the way I feel about things in my heart is not the same as most of you and I don't want to fight or make any enemies, goodbye.

Eh, if you wish to not continue on in this argument, it's cool, your choice and all that. Glad we got your perspective, though-I agree with FizzingWhizzbees, it was interesting hearing your thoughts. .

Angela

 

[Popmartijn]

As I understand the intent of the law, it allows people to opt of non-emergency procedures. My questions was: Should someone forgo a medical career on the basis that they (for example) might be forced to conduct or assist in an elective abortion?

When is a procedure not an emergency? Where is the exact border. Yes, life threatening is an emergency, but then? Permanent disability? Temporary disability? Unusual/excessive scarring?



Marty