Bill Allows Refusal Of Health Care On Moral Basis

[rug]

April 21, 2013 8:52 AM
By David Eggert, Associated Press

LANSING (AP) - For 35 years, Michigan law has protected health care providers who refuse to perform an abortion on moral or religious grounds.

Hospitals and clinics can’t be sued. Doctors and nurses can’t lose their jobs for objecting to terminating a pregnancy.

Legislation that could be voted on as early as this week in the Republican-led Legislature would extend the same legal protections for any medical service such as providing contraception or medical marijuana, or taking someone off life support. Employers and health insurers – not just medical providers – also could opt out of paying for services as a matter of conscience.

Supporters say the legislation protects religious freedom and is needed particularly in the wake of the federal health care law mandating employer-provided birth control in their health plans. Opponents counter that the bill is an overreach that wrongly lets health workers and organizations impose their beliefs on patients, putting their treatment at risk.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/04/21/bill-allows-refusal-of-health-care-on-moral-basis/

[rocktivity]

1. If it's wrong to force people to act against their religious beliefs

then it is also wrong to force people to be subject to other people's religious beliefs.

If your job duties interfere with your religious beliefs, you should have a job that doesn't.


rocktivity

[enlightenment]

2. Exactly.

If your religious beliefs are that important, find a job that doesn't create any conflict with them.

[Igel]

6. Often it's the job description that changes.

If you have a job and the terms of the job change, sometimes you're stuck.

If you have a contract, then you have a lawsuit.

But if you're a professional and its the social contract that's being re-written by one side, I can muster a bit of empathy.

Most professional jobs have enough freedom to pick and choose the kinds of services offered. In this case, some services are being mandated while others are still optional.

[rug]

7. The tension is not simply between job duties and religious beliefs.

The owners of these facilities have a dual obligation; one to their workers and one to their patients. In most instances both can be accommodated. In those cases where the essential nature of the job prohibits a believer from performing those functions, the relligious belief should compel that worker to seek work elsewhere. Otherwise, it is the employer' obligation to accommodate them. It is not a straight black and white line.

[rocktivity]

14. I come down on the side of the "black and white line"

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

that results in the patient getting the care that's needed.


rocktivity

[Apophis]

12. Oh snap.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. I'd steer clear of christian scientist hospitals.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. What about 7th Day Adventist?

Good medical care with a vegan twist

[EvolveOrConvolve]

5. What if refusing care breaks the hippocratic oath?

[rug]

9. Tort law trumps the Hippocratic Oath.

Labor Laws and Equal Opputunity laws govern the workplace.

I don't think in routine circumstances there would be a problem.

Your question is most apt in an emergency situation when there is no time to find a heath care worker who does not have a concientious objection.

Can a nurse in the dialysis department be enlisted to assist at a emergency surgery that may result in the termination of a pregnancy?

I don't know. It's not at all a clear answer. It definitely requires more thought that drawing lines and producing slogans.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

15. I guess I was referring to the ethical issues rather than the legal issues

If one takes the Hippocratic Oath, but violate that oath because of religious views, is it ethical? What if their religious views cause harm or death to another human being?

[rug]

16. I think they'd have a problem with the first sentence.

Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath



Here's the modern version.

http://www.med.cornell.edu/deans/pdf/hippocratic_oath.pdf

I think the Hippocrtic Oath these days is more aspirational than ethical. Modern bioethics does put the patient foremost. This type of legislation is introducing an element from the workers' standpoint. It's a complex question.

[skepticscott]

8. Hey, that can't be

We've been told by arrogantly reliable sources on this very board that religion doesn't motivate people to do anything bad, or to force others to conform.

[rug]

10. Do you think conscientious objection is per se bad?

Speaking of something being bad, we've also been told by arrogantly reliable sources that public policy should not be based on moral views.

[skepticscott]

11. No, you haven't

You've been told that public policy should not be based solely on the dictates of religions.

Conscientious objection does not force others who do not share your religious views to be subject to or restricted by them. Sucky analogy...typical.

[rug]

13. Neither have you.

[Jim__]

17. Given that it's Michigan, I wonder if they'd apply a similar law outside of the medical profession.

For instance, many religions forbid stealing. The state of Michigan allows stealing by law enforcement under very general conditions. I wonder if they would pass a law that exempted police officers from confiscationg property when they considered the confiscation to be stealing and so against their religion.

From The Detroit News:

Local law enforcement agencies are raising millions of dollars by seizing private property suspected in crimes, but often without charges being filed -- and sometimes even when authorities admit no offense was committed.

The money raised by confiscating goods in Metro Detroit soared more than 50 percent to at least $20.62 million from 2003 to 2007, according to a Detroit News analysis of records from 58 law enforcement agencies. In some communities, amounts raised went from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands -- and, in one case, into the millions.

"It's like legalized stealing," said Jacque Sutton, a 21-year-old college student from Mount Clemens whose 1989 Mustang was seized by Detroit police raiding a party. Charges against him and more than 100 others were dropped, but he still paid more than $1,000 to get the car back.

"According to the law, I did nothing wrong -- but they're allowed to take my property anyway. It doesn't make sense."

...

Of course, I don't really wonder at all. They only want to extend religious rights of refusal for acts these law makers disapprove of. If you're a cop and your job conflicts with your religion, either quit your religion, or quit your job.

[rug]

18. That's a good point. Why legislate conscience exemptions only in health care?

[LostOne4Ever]

19. There is a difference

There is a difference between being forced to commit an act that is against your religious beliefs and being forced to give someone ELSE the means to commit an act that is against your religion.

With Abortion, the doctors (according to their beliefs) are taking the actions that "kills" the pregnancy. However, when they give out birth control, it is the patient who is committing the act. They are not the one committing the act they find immoral, but by refusing they are forcing their morality on someone who does not share their beliefs.

Also, this law is just begging to be abused by healthcare providers so that they don't have to pay out on legitimate claims.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. If you can't set aside your religion to interact with larger society and perform essential job...

functions, then you should get fired and remove yourself from society like the Amish or something.