So the state of Michigan hates gay people so much that it’s going to let doctors refuse to treat patients simply because they’re gay. Article here.
This is sickening, absolutely sickening. What sort of bigotted shithead of a doctor would refuse to treat a person just because of who they love? What kind of Christian would let a person suffer from illness or even die when they could treat the problem, just out of a sense of moral superiority?
This is pure, unadulterated evil. This is no different than if the South passed laws saying white doctors could legally refuse to treat blacks.
“We’re sorry, Mr. Queer, but there’s only one doctor in the state qualified to treat your condition, but he won’t help you because you’re a fag. Oh sure that’s discrimination, but hey, it’s legal!”
God help any gays in any small town where there are a dearth of available doctors, and those who are there are “conscientous objectors.” What the fuck are they objecting to? I’ll tell you: they’re objecting to the fact that gays are allowed to live.
And look who’s neck deep in this: the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholicism: “Sure we protect child rapists from prosecution, and even help them find new targets by moving them to new parishes, and then lie to the victims and try to cover up what we did —but hey, at least we hate fags!” Because isn’t that what Christianity is all about?
I appreciate your concern, but I think most of your outrage is unwarranted and your post is misleading. As you can see from the current version of the bill, the bill makes no mention at all of gays. Nor does it mention at all any objection to providing service to certain types of people. It refers to certain types of service. Presumably it is intended to protect Catholics from having to provide abortion services. That is all.
What the sensationalist rag that you link to observed is that suppose someone had a “sincerely held religious or moral belief” that prohibited servicing gays, it would be theoretically protected by this bill. Fortunately, that is not the position of the Catholic Church, or of any other religion that I am aware of. It theoretically could happen, I guess. But to present this as being anything other than a farfetched possible ancillary outcome of the bill is seriously misleading.
"The AMA has been kind enough to do some in-house research to determine if the Modern Oath on this site had somehow originated from the AMA. It had not. The AMA has a code of ethics, but there is, in fact, no version of the Hippocratic Oath that the AMA espouses or promotes. This is the information we have received from the AMA’s Ethics Division.
Our own research on the Hippocratic Oath, inspired by the discovery that our posting of the Modern Oath did not originate from the AMA, has been most interesting. While it is common knowledge among both doctors and the lay public that doctors take an oath that says, “Never do harm,” the fact is that not all medical schools require their graduating doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. In addition, Medicine’s use of the Oath changes over time. Here are some items for your consideration, the results of a study by Robert Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D., in which 157 deans of allopathic and osteopathic schools of medicine in Canada and the United States were surveyed regarding the use of the Hippocratic Oath:
In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
In 1928, only 26% of schools administered some form of the Oath.
Only 1 school used the original Hippocratic Oath.
68 schools used versions of the original Hippocratic Oath.
100% of current Oaths pledge a commitment to patients.
Only 43% vow to be accountable for their actions.
14% include a prohibition against euthanasia.
Only 11% invoke a diety.
8% prohibit abortion.
Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients.
From - “The Use of the Hippocratic Oath: A Review of 20th Century Practice and a Content Analysis of Oaths Administered in Medical Schools in the U.S. and Canada in 1993.” by Robert D. Orr, M.D. and Norman Pang, M.D."
While I think you’re right that denial of medical treatment on the basis of sexual orientation could be theoretically possible as a result of this bill, I think it’s pretty obvious that that’s NOT its intended aim. This is about abortions and birth control, not about gay people. I have some problems with the Catholic church, but they’re not THAT bad.
IzzyR’s post is somewhat accurate- the bill prevents Catholics from being forced to provide contraception not just abortion services.
It doesn’t make any specific mention to any class of patients, though; the objection of the health care employee must be with regard to the specific service he/she is being asked to perform, not to the patient he is being asked to treat.
I’m surprised; most of the 365gay.com articles I’ve followed links to are usually reasonably accurate with regard to legislation, but this one is way off the mark. Even if sexual orientation isn’t a protected class in Michigan, I’d call it very unlikely that any court could construe this proposed legislation as granted healthcare workers the right to refuse treatment to gays.
Any bill that could even theoretically allow for any group to be denied medical care because their demographic profile offends the sensibilities of the available service providers is evil to an extreme. Gays will be the most obvious victims of this law, but so will other minorities. This legislation is a big win for the agents of hate.
From a speech by Ronald Reagan, apparently addressing why he pretty much ignored the AIDS crisis throughout his presidency until it was much, much too late.
And they say this man was a great American. :rolleyes:
I for the life of me will never understand why just becuase someone goes through 3 years of med school and 2 years of residency they are obligated to provide their time to anyone who wants it.
Any bill that could even theoretically allow for any group to be denied medical care because their demographic profile offends the sensibilities of the available service providers is evil to an extreme. Gays will be the most obvious victims of this law, but so will other minorities. This legislation is a big win for the agents of hate.
Get the fuck over yourself Spectrum. This “I’m gay, everyone hates me,” shit is getting really fucking old. This bill has nothing to do with gays. Gays will not be the obvious victims of this law unless more gays go in for abortions than straight people. That is not the case.
Read the fucking bill before you go off making more hateful, horrible accusations. I, and everyone else who may support this bill, am just plain fucking tired of being called a hating homophobe because I have some opinions (on matters that don’t even relate to homosexuality) that differ from yours.
This legislation is a win for people who don’t want to perform abortions or give out contraceptives. Guess the fuck what. You may support abortions but not everyone does. I would love to see how a person who describes himself as pro-choice could possibly argue that a woman should have the right to choose an abortion but a doctor doesn’t have the right to choose whether or not to perform one.
I don’t see how you could have construed this bill to hateful towards gays and other minorities. What the fuck are you talking about? Why do you hate straight people so much?
Also before you react I suggest you read the bill (linked above). Here are a couple of important excerpts that will go against the points I can anticipate you making:
I have never had an outburst like this on the SDMB but this time you have gone too far. You have accused people of being racists and homophobes. You have accused people of wanting to kill gays and minorities. All in opposition to something about which you apparently have no understanding. It is obvious you did no research into this issue before you immedediatly began spewing the most viscious and hateful accusations at people whom you don’t even know.
Why can’t you bring an issue to the SDMB without the attached hate speech. I have quite a few gay friends and I have never seen in them the sort of hate and paranoia that you exhibit here on a regular basis.
Michigan, hell. I live in New Jersey and can’t find a primary-care GP who takes my insurance. I found one nearby, and when I told her my medical history, she told me she didn’t treat “people like me,” and that if I didn’t get out of her office, she would call the police. Now I go to the local clinic and see whichever doctor’s on duty.
Just because it got through our fucked-up House, it doesn’t mean it’s going to get through our slightly-less-fucked-up Senate. And as someone else has pointed out, I can’t imagine Granholm not vetoing it even if it did make it through, if it was argued to her that it could effect the health care of gays. It isn’t clear to me that this is, in fact, the impact of the bill.
Can we slice though some of the fucking hysteria, please? The “Michigan” does not hate gays. Christ alfuckingmighty. And we’ve got a nice healthy bunch of people who are pretty fucking proactive on this stuff (I note Chris Kolb is quoted in the article) and I don’t think this will slide through unnoticed.
Michigan doesn’t Hate Them Awful Sinful Ol’ Gays anymore than Kansas doesn’t believe in evolution. Sure, we’ve got some pinheads at the capital, but that doesn’t mean an entire state can be credited with a shithead attitude.
365-Gay is useful for covering news stories which need attention, but it has a terrible way of slanting the news sometimes. I can recall someone pointing me there to read about an anthrax threat against a Senator (in the last year or so), and they headlined it as being about his gay stance when there was no evidence the threat had anything at all to do with his stance on gays.
Shirley - We don’t just hate the Lions. We hate the Avs, too.
I really don’t think this bill is going to go anywhere. Even if it makes it past the Senate, it’s not going to go through Granholm, who is a fairly liberal gal. Nor do we have hordes of doctors salivating at the opportunity to deny people treatment simply because they’re gay. Finally, we’re not all homophobic assholes. So take a deep breath. Please.
Well, being a native Arkansan, I would take objection to that, but seeing as how I, too, hold the masses of fundamentalist racist homophobic rednecks in the lowest possible esteem and can’t wait for the blessed chance to someday leave this hellhole of a backward, educationally and fiscally incompetent state, I will have to say…carry on. At the soonest opportunity I will remove the only common bond* I have with these yahoos.
FB
*that being place of legal residence
