Anna does politics

[annathepiper]

Got a couple of things I need to spread the word on, folks.

This one is an article about yet another ongoing fight to get creationism taught in schools. Some of y'all will have seen this going around LJ already--and in particular, the quote of one pastor who says, "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." The sad part is, I'm certain that man is unaware of the irony of his own statement.

This one, however, is a LOT more scary. It seems Michigan is trying to pass a bill that will allow doctors to refuse to treat people if their faith goes against anything about that patient. Its original intent appears to be involved with letting doctors opt out of performing abortions--but there are other huge, scary implications too. For a big ol' example, this would mean that a doctor would have the legal right in that state to refuse to treat a gay person. Or a person of a differing religious belief.

Anybody out there on my Friends list in Michigan, or acquainted with people who are, please spread the word to hammer on Michigan legislators to kill this thing. ASAP. It's already out of the state House. This one is arguably the most terrifying in the recent slew of "faith-based" legislation I've seen states trying to pass ever since Bush got his second term--because it totally shoots down what any decent, honest doctor should stand for: i.e., treating the people that need it. ANYBODY that needs it.

Comments

[solarbird]

The fact that it's any patient, not just any procedure, speaks directly to the enlargement of scope. The fact that they then make exceptions (race, for example), also confirms that. They're targeting queers.

[avram]

According to the text of the bill, no, it's procedures, not patients.

Also, it doesn't apply if "participation in that health care service is indicated as a part of the normal course of duties in the posting of the availability of the position for employment".

[solarbird]

It says "a health care service," more specifically, and defines that in a way that includes both "diagnosis" and "treatment," and allows removing yourself from any participation in any included activity.

The fact that they say that you cannot use this exemption on the basis of race or other specifically civil-rights-protected status indicates clearly to me that both patient type and specific procedure are intended to be included.

If there wasn't an exemption calling out civil rights law, I think you could make a case that regardless of what it says, what they really mean is individual procedures. But the fact that they do say, 'except in these cases,' and then refer to civil rights law, says otherwise to me.

[avram]

OK, yeah, I see what you mean. The right has an established history of arguing that sexual preference (by which, of course, they mean all sexual preferences but for their own) should not be given the same level of legal protection as race and religion, and that attempting to do so constitutes seeking "special privileges". So yeah, that probably is an attempt to sneak anti-gay bigotry in.

[solarbird]

"Special rights" is still the standard term. Any use of the word "special," of course, ignores that heterosexuality is included, but they don't care, because, well, duh.

[avram]

I skimmed the text of that Michigan bill earlier today, and there's a thing I'm wondering.

Imagine I'm a surgeon on-staff at a Michigan hospital. Pretty good salaried position, I imagine. This bill becomes law. I convert to Christian Scientist, and annouce that it's now against my religious beliefs to perform surgery on anybody at all. Can they fire or demote me without breaking the law?

[wildshadowstar.livejournal.com]

This is too weird because Tanya is on her way today to get a place so that she can be moved in before starting law school up in Michigan.

[annathepiper]

That IS just a touch weird, yeah! I mean, the Tanya part.

[otoselkie.livejournal.com]

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.

That is one of the scariest things I've heard this year. I have no goddamn words.

. . . Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

Hippocratic Oath? WTF is that? *crumbles up oath and tosses it in waste basket*
I'm going to move to a little island, turn off all forms of communication and live like a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed $hit), so that I can be happy with the world again.
-=Jeff=-

Anna does politics..

[(Anonymous)]

I suppose one way of looking at it is that if a doctor doesn't want to treat me, I probably don't want him to..It's my guess the overwhelming majority of medical folks could care less who you are or what your lifestyle, beliefs,cartoons you watch,or anything else about your life: if you need treatment,they'll do it. Part of my maintenance area at my last job was the ER,and they didn't have time to grill anyone about their life...they were busy trying to keep that life going.Being the maintenance guy means going all over the hospital and talking to everyone. never heard anyone mention refusing to treat a patient because of any element of their life choices..I'm sure they exist, but they must be rare indeed. Scott

Re: Anna does politics..

[annathepiper]

I hope that that kind of attitude would be rare among doctors, yeah. Though I also noted that this bill would in theory be excluding emergency treatment--a doctor wouldn't have the option of backing out of giving someone treatment in the ER. Because you're right, in the ER you don't have the time or the luxury to find out whether the patient agrees with you on whatever you happen to believe in.

But that scenario's not really the point of this bill. It was initially targeted at abortions--which aren't emergency procedures (at least, certainly not under the vast majority of conditions, I'd think). And I'm quite certain that there are doctors out there who would be extremely uncomfortable if called upon to perform them.

The problem is, though, that if the bill comes to pass, it could be heavily misused to deny all sorts of care to patients if their doctors find out they have a conflict of faiths. :/