e-Claire

A Step Too Far . . .

Sent to me by my a loyal reader is this piece of interesting news:

...a package of bills passed last week by the Michigan house could allow health care providers to refuse [gay people] treatment on ethical, moral, or religious grounds unless they need emergency care. The legislation would allow health care workers and insurers to refuse for reasons of conscience to perform procedures, fill prescriptions, or cover treatment. The legislation would not apply in medical emergencies. ...Republican sponsors of the bills said they are not targeting gays and simply want to protect providers from compromising their personal convictions with respect to such things as abortion, stem cell research, cloning, and genetic testing.

Now, I may not get out enough, but isn't this already the case? Or is it the law that physicians must treat anyone and everyone who walks into their office? Cuz if that's the case, I have some lawsuits to file. [I've been fired as a patient several times because I'm not. Patient, that is. I won't wait an hour past the appointment time -- I reschedule. I won't respond quietly to being patted on the butt and told that a yeast infection is "all in my head." [true story] I won't stop asking questions when my 35 seconds are up, and I actually do research and ask 'em if they've read the literature. baaaad patient. bad. ] but that's not important, now. I am under the impression that, except for emergency treatment and clinic work, a physician is at choice around whom they treat. I also believe that it is illegal to refuse treatment to someone for the sole reason of the patient's race. I may be wrong.

The bills bar health care providers from refusing to treat anyone based on religion, race, national origin, age, or gender. But sexual orientation is not on that list.

Why would that have been included if it were already the case? And why would "sexual orientation" have been left out? Did they forget??? On a more optimistic note, saner voices are heard:

The Michigan State Medical Society also objects to the legislation. "We don't believe it's necessary," spokesman David Fox said. "Medical ethics has dictated for decades, if not centuries, that a physician isn't required to do anything that's against his or her morals."

Whoinhell needs a law to allow a physician who doesn't want to do abortions not to do them? Are there an angry mobs compelling physicians to perform procedures with which they disagree? What is the real dealio in this??

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.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored, don' it. Well, Paul, I've got news for you and your pals [cuz I know the Catholics aren't the only people behind this.] I hear that your Values do not include performing abortions. They might not even go so far as to allow you to treat a gay man's ingrown toenail. That's fine, you don't have to. No one's gonna make you -- this is America. Though if you can't bring yourself to tread a gay man's broken leg or a lesbian's appendicitis you might want to consider a nice career in retail handbags. But I'll be damned if I will allow you and your ilk to pass laws which, on their face, seem to be stating the obvious but underneath are laying the groundwork for discrimination based on your religious biases. These are your biases, friend. Based on >your religion. They are not Truth to the rest of us. This is America and, unless we all fall asleep at the helm, no religious group can compel anyone to abide by its tenets. Religious belief is voluntary and adherence to a code of Values is a personal matter. You might say it is between you and your god. Any behavior that conforms to religious tenets based on law reprisal or threat of violence is not worth a damn, and is certainly not religious behavior. So don't even start with me. This legislation indicates a trend that bears watching. It is not about gays, or LGBTs. It's not about marriage and the definition thereof. It is about the alarming increase in people believing that, since they think their religion is Truth all the rest of us oughta abide by it. That is just plain wrong. Don't forget -- this is how religious wars get started, and airplanes end up being flown into buildings. Think it through. -- MORE: I also don't believe that opposition to homosexuality is a "hate crime." Beating someone up is a crime. Disagreeing with him about the human condition is not.

1. How the hell would anyone KNOW your sexual “orientation” if YOU DIDN’T MAKE IT KNOWN YOURSELF???! go to the doctor, get treated, and leave your sex life outta it.
   (unless your treatment is because of your sexual tendancies of course......)
   ack.

   Posted by SondraK  on  04/27/04  at  06:53 PM

2. There is also what people *think* someone’s orientation is. 

   People do have this tendency to behave as if their perceptions were reality.

   btw, do you never mention your Hubby, important to you as he is, in casual conversation with your doctor?

   Posted by Claire  on  04/28/04  at  02:19 AM

3. I guess you don’t know many gay people, Sandra.  In that culture, like in other sub-cultures, there are fashion conventions, conventions of speech and manners which distinguish members.  Sometimes it’s clear and sometimes not.

   The point is; why should someone have to disguise themselves to get medical care? That seems barbaric.

   Will you next advocate draping women?

   Posted by  on  05/01/04  at  02:17 AM

<< Back to main