Gays Losing Hospital Care?

To summarize this article I found on blogdex, there is legislation underway (Ed. — it passed on Wednesday) in Michigan that would make it so "Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients".

From the article on 365Gay.com:

"The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds."

So not only does this mean Doctors could refuse to treat homosexuals if it was against their relgion to do so (Catholicism), but if they felt the need not to treat a brown-skinned young man with a turban on, they wouldn't have to.

I don't even want to think of the ramifications associated with this.

Comments

[kartooner]

Wow. I mean.. Wow. It's difficult to form words in response to this "issue". Unbelievable that it actually passed legislation.

[Nicole]

Hmmm. The thought that "Stupid people come up with stupid ideas," comes to mind.

But, it passed? Ridiculous.

[Mike]

The article also mentions that previous to the vote on this piece of legislature, there was some sort of a Catholic conference held. I guess we know where that particular state government's beliefs fall.

[Heather]

I do not agree with this, but just to play devil's advocate here, it could also be an extension of the right to refusal insomuch as some doctors do have a right to refuse treatment to someone with HIV or AIDS, because of just how dangerous it is to treat someone. It's so easily passed when you come in contact with someone's blood, that I've heard of several doctors who won't handle those cases. I know being in hospitals as much as I have that I've been frightened whenever I see someone losing blood around me. I don't know what kind of diseases some stranger sitting next to me in a hospital may have. It's a scary thought, and I totally understand - even if I may not support - a doctor's reason to not particularly like the idea of treating someone with a disease such as that, because of all the risk involved. But like I said, just playing devil's advocate, there's no reason to flame me, I'm not agreeing, I'm just saying.

[Paul Michael Smith]

That is pure political correctness gone mad! This is one of the biggest problems of our age not just in the US but increasing in the UK and across Europe and it is happening because of the "litigation society" we have today.

In my personal opinon any decent Doctor worth their soul would not discriminate and choose his or her patients.

Religion has a hell of a lot to answer for! Get reading Richard Dawkins and you will see what I mean but that is another long winded isssue that I am fed up of debating with people who are usually brainwashed from birth.

[Mike]

In all of the literature I've read regarding the transmission of HIV through blood, there has to be a direct blood to blood contact (or blood to semen/vaginal fluid) in order for it to spread. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus does not have an airborne strain as of yet, so many doctor's fears regarding its transmission are unfounded. However, I do believe that in extremely dangerous situations such as when hospital workers are treating contagious diseases, they do have the option of refusing to treat someone — because let's be honest, no one is forcing them to be doctors.

And to the same effect, I'm not sure how "moral, religious, or ethical grounds" are a means to save someone from immediate bodily harm, like the refusal to treat an AIDS patient. I truly hope that this is not an extension of the previous legislature, because if it was, that would mean that people of an opposite moral standing and religion theoretically pose a danger to your health.