(MI) State Senate passes bill allowing doctors to refuse care for moral or ethical reasons
bill in the state Legislature would let health care providers, facilities, or insurers deny service based on religious, moral or ethical objections. The state Senate passed the bill Thursday.
Republican state Senator John Moolenaar is sponsoring the bill.
“This legislation before you today will establish a solid, yet workable framework for protecting the fundamental rights for all Michigan citizens,” Moolenaar said.
Critics of the bill say it would let entire health systems deny care.
Democratic state Senator Rebekah Warren said the measure is dangerous, and goes beyond protecting individual doctors’ rights.
“Some religions don’t believe in blood transfusions. If you have a health care condition where you need a blood transfusion and you have no one on staff who’s willing to give that for you, where do you stand?” said Warren.
Others worry that the bill would effectively sanction discrimination.
They point to a provision in the bill that would protect against civil, criminal, and administrative liability for individuals and facilities that choose to deny care.
The measure would not apply to emergency situations, and providers would have to let patients know where they can go for treatment.
It now goes to the state House.
The state Senate also passed a package of abortion-related bills. It would restrict insurance plans on an upcoming health exchange from covering elective abortions. That’s unless the coverage is offered as a separate, optional rider.
It's a sneaky way to not dispense birth control and the morning after pill?
They are trying to do away with giving women a choice.
Is it okay if you go to McDonalds and order and cheese burger and the girl behind the counter says, "I cant sell that to you because its against my religion to eat meat and dairy together"
Is it okay if you go to the movies and the man in the box office refuses to sell you a ticket to a movie because it depicts two unmarried people have an affair, something which is a violation of his faith?
Is it okay for a taxi driver to refuse to drive a woman because his religion says he cant be alone with a woman he is not related to?
Of course not. None of those things are acceptable. Any person who tried to do that wold be fired. So why are we letting others do the same thing?
Remember that a majority of Michigan doctors feel no moral reason they should treat people with HIV.
Michigan is also the ONLY state in the country where patients are not allowed to sue drug companies if they are harmed (or killed) by a prescription drug. The drug companies are given total reign to cripple and kill the population with no repercussions whatsoever! This state is FUCKED.
r1, women have another choice. Visit a different doctor.
Nan Michiganwomyn should sponsor a bill denying viagra to penised persons
R5 gives the usual right-wing response. Trouble is, with most health care plans you can't just "go visit another doctor" if:
The closest MD is not in your plan's network (unless you want to pay most or all of the cost).
You have to get a referral from your Primary Care Physician to see someone else.
Your choices among MDs is very limited - this is a particular problem in rural areas.
Bills like this one are only concerned with the rights of the fundie doctors and nurses at the epxense of the rights of the patient.
Can an emergency room doctor leave a patient to die because he/she has amoral objection.Do you refuse to treat a gun shot victim because he have a moral objection to guns?
[quote]Michigan is also the ONLY state in the country where patients are not allowed to sue drug companies if they are harmed (or killed) by a prescription drug. The drug companies are given total reign to cripple and kill the population with no repercussions whatsoever!
R4, you're wrong. First of all, Michigan isn't the only state with such a liability proviso (I know for a fact Utah has an identical one, having tried a case to that effect there, and I'm sure others do as well). Second, the law is NEVER so absolute as the context you infer; gross negligence is always an actionable tort (though proving it - or, for that matter, proving *any* drug-related tort - is difficult-to-impossible). Finally, the FDA is frequently as much or more to blame for a problematic drug making it to market than any individual drug manufacturer.
Are they also including a provision that requires the medical insurance to cover a visit to another doctor that WILL provide the service the patient needs? Or that waives the patient's copay if their doctor refuses to provided necessary services?
Because that's where patients get fucked, it takes time and trouble to get to a different doctor, and money they may not have.
Doctors refusing treatment should just leave their practice and go into another field. The lack of ethics knows no moral boundary.
What I think is a separate bill, passed by the Michigan Senate last week, allows employers to refuse to pay for abortions, contraception or other services and medications that they oppose as a matter of conscience.
R1 and R14 are right. This is the republican platform all over.
This bill is practically BEGGING for a lawsuit. Refusing care for "ethical" or "moral" reasons is about as slippery a slope as it gets. What happens when a doctor announces he thinks it's "immoral" for a white man to be married to a black woman? Would his refusal to treat her be "ethical" or simply outright racial discrimination? (which is categorically barred by federal law) What about emergency situations, where doctors almost always have a duty to provide care if reasonable? Or how about a doctor who has a "moral" problem providing care to the child of two gay men or lesbians? (special legal duties apply when talking about children) Finally, on what possible basis would an *insurance* company have either a "moral" OR "ethical" ground for refusing to insure someone? It sounds more like the insurance industry's lobbyists managed to slide that one in to provide them with yet another excuse to refuse coverage in some conditions, particularly now that refusals for existing conditions are barred by Obama's HCR act.
Just the tip of the iceberg, but I hope you see my point.
I guess a chrishitian believer doc can refuse to help a gay person legally.
r2, Muslim clerks in a Michigan supermarket refused to touch hams in plastic packages. Management caved.
[quote] Muslim clerks in a Michigan supermarket refused to touch hams in plastic packages. Management caved.
Management should have fired their fucking asses.