Monday, April 11, 2005

The Theocrats Strike Again

If you are gay, don't get sick in Michigan because you might not be able to get care. Doctors in Michigan will now be allowed to turn down caring for a patient because of their sexual orientation. Any Doctor who turns down a patient because of their sexual orientation is not worthy of a medical license. I'm guessing educators are next to get an exemption from teaching gay kids.

If there are any Christians out there wondering why many liberals have so much disrespect towards Christianity, this is one example why.

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

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.

H/T Devils Advocate


Boomr said...

This is the perfect example of what I meant a few weeks ago when I posted a comment that said that when it comes to politics, the religious politicians practice a religion of exclusion, rather than one of inclusion.

This is the absolute height of hypocrisy, both on political and on religious grounds. The Catholic faith believes in the Bible and its maxims to love your fellow man and to turn the other cheek and to make blessed the peacemakers, then go and exclude one tenth of the population from receiving medical care.

These people will definitely not be going to heaven.

Smoke Eater said...

First, let me say that I agree with you, Dingo. ANY "doctor" who does this, should not have a medical license. But I don't agree with Boomr's statement that "These people will definately not be going to heaven." To say that is to judge, and the Bible also says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I firmly believe that people can change from sinful ways, and that if someone TRULY repents, they receive salvation just as anyone else would. I've done things in my life, that I wish more than anything that I could un-do, but I cannot. I've asked for forgiveness from God, from those I wronged, and I forgave myself. This is not to try to say these doctors are just "mis-guided", quite the opposite, they are flat out wrong to turn ANYONE away who needs medical care. I have heard of doctors being able to refuse pre-natal care to women who take drugs and won't stop. The doctor who was interviewed said he offers help (counseling, rides to counseling, ect...), but if the mother will not stop taking the drugs, he is not obligated to give her pre-natal care, because any help he may give the unborn child (not "fetus") would be quickly un-done by the next "high". I don't really agree with it, but I see more validity in that than this.

After all, aren't we, as Christians, COMMANDED to "love the sinner, hate the SIN"? That means that EVERY PERSON on Earth should be treated with respect, but we do not have to agree with, or condone their actions, but if they won't change, I still wouldn't turn them away from a hospital. I hope that this reaches the SCOTUS and that they actually do their job and see that this is not right, nor legal, and "advise" all doctors to do their job, and provide the medical care they were trained to provide, to anyone to needs it.

Boomr said...

Smoke Eater,

I understand the general Christian concept of forgiveness and absolution. That's great for relatively minor sins, and I'm all for second chances.

But when the religion itself is used specifically to commit what can only be identified as a sin according to that religion, then it becomes institutionalized, and I'm not sure forgiveness is warranted. This is not the case of someone turning his back on church doctrine to hurt someone, it's the case of someone using church doctrine to hurt someone. That, I can't condone.

As for "judge not, lest ye be judged," I would appreciate it if someone would tell that to the allegedly religious people pushing to exclude a class of people from medical care. They're essentially judging these people on moral grounds, using that judgment to prevent them from receiving the necessary care that EVERYONE deserves.

And I have to say, I have a hard time reconciling church doctrine that essentially allows someone to lead a full life of sin, then at the last, deathbed minute, make a weak apology, and gain entrance to heaven. I truly do not believe that any benevolent God would want his/her/its followers to push for the laws these supposedly devout people wanted to pass.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality, especially when the sinner repeatedly commits the same sin IN THE NAME OF GOD. Religion should be a shield, not a sword.