Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 4, 2012, 08:21 PM   #1
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Michigan Senate Committee Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Healthcare Bill

Quote:
The Michigan Senate’s Committee on Health Policy has approved a bill that would protect health care professionals who wish to discriminate against the LGBT community. Under the guise of “religious liberty and conscience protection,” Senate Bill 975 would allow health facilities to refuse to provide any health care service for any reason of “conscience,” which includes “religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles”:

A health facility may assert as a matter of conscience an objection to providing a health care service and may decline to provide a health care service that violates its conscience pursuant to this section. If a health facility asserts as a matter of conscience an objection to providing a health care service under this section, the health facility shall apply that objection equally to all patients that it serves, subject to this act.

The bill waives any civil, criminal, or administrative liability for the facilities that choose to discriminate, so no legal recourse would be possible. Instead, it guarantees damages for any person who is forced to violate their “conscience.” It also dictates that no public official or entity can deny aid or grants to a facility that discriminates based on conscience, which means that if same-sex recognition changes in Michigan, the state would remain obligated to financially support agencies like Catholic Charities, even if they refuse to serve same-sex couples, as transpired in Illinois.

Should SB 975 pass, any doctor or medical professional could refuse to provide any service — be it an abortion, HIV treatment, or even a basic check-up for a gay or trans patient — and the employing facility would be prohibited from taking action against the employee. Given members of the LGBT community already face severe health inequities, including basic access to care, this bill could exacerbate an already dire situation. Health policy should protect patients, not doctors’ “moral convictions.”
Source

Welcome to America in 1712 2012.

I have nothing against people of faith, but I absolutely don't believe religion should be used as justification for discrimination.
Moyank24 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 08:54 PM   #2
malman89
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
It's just a committee. As a Michigan resident, I will hope and assume it will die on the Senate floor. It could have enough support in the House, unfortunately.

Either way, Gov. Snyder would veto it. He's great in some ways, but in others not so much. If it's not a project of his, he's pretty hands off and just ignores things until he absolutely has to address it.
__________________
Current Machine: Lenovo IdeaPad Z510

Old Machine: Late 2006 Model - 13.3" MacBook, 2 GHz C2D, 4 (3.3) GB RAM, 500 GB 7200rpm HD running OS X 10.6.8
malman89 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 09:24 PM   #3
vega07
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
How embarrassing for Michigan.

I would hope that doctors would know better than to violate the Hippocratic Oath and their own conscience.
vega07 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 09:45 PM   #4
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.
leekohler is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 09:54 PM   #5
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Doctors that discriminate shouldn't be allowed to be doctors. They're obviously not of the right intelligence level to be dealing with peoples lives.
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 10:01 PM   #6
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
Doctors that discriminate shouldn't be allowed to be doctors. They're obviously not of the right intelligence level to be dealing with peoples lives.
Agreed. If you can't do your job, then go find another profession.
leekohler is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2012, 10:09 PM   #7
Moyank24
Thread Starter
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by malman89 View Post
It's just a committee. As a Michigan resident, I will hope and assume it will die on the Senate floor. It could have enough support in the House, unfortunately.

Either way, Gov. Snyder would veto it. He's great in some ways, but in others not so much. If it's not a project of his, he's pretty hands off and just ignores things until he absolutely has to address it.
There's some comfort in that - however, the fact that this bill has been written and given the opportunity to be passed is the scary part. This isn't one nut - this is someone that has gotten support from many others in an effort to write and drum up votes for it. This is someone who has been elected. That's the scary part. In this day and age, this is a bill that should never be typed, let alone presented to a state senate committee.

As Americans, we think we are so enlightened - but we are still being lead by those whose thinking is a thousand years old.
Moyank24 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 05:16 AM   #8
VulchR
macrumors 68000
 
VulchR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....
__________________
My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
VulchR is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 07:39 AM   #9
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....
It should. But you know they would cry foul over that.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 09:25 AM   #10
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Primum non nocere, or ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν if you prefer.

Poor, dead, Hippocrates. Maybe it's better he's not still around.

I'm still waiting for them to withhold treatment to gun-shot victims who clam-up to the cops.

That might actually be beneficial to Society.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 09:47 AM   #11
Andeavor
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
There is something called the Hippocratic Oath, which determines that no medical professional should refuse to treat anyone based on ethical or moral justification - any nurse or doctor supporting that bill should have their license revoked.

Frankly, certain Americans should get over that religion-thing because in the long run it doesn't do them any good nor do they any good by discriminating others (What would Jesus think?). And medical professionals should be ashamed to even think of narrowing down the number of people they "should" treat, it's plain disgusting.
Andeavor is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 10:15 AM   #12
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulchR View Post
Presumably this bill would allow atheists to deny treatment to religious people....
That's pretty good. Or, a vegan doctor refusing to treat a hunter.

A road to hell is paved with allowing doctors to arbitrarily deny care based on "conscience."


Also, this would still run aground of the AMA's Code of Ethics:

Quote:
...B-1.50 Discrimination. Membership in any category of the AMA or in any of its constituent associations shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, color, creed, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, or for any other reason unrelated to character, competence, ethics, professional status or professional activities.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief

Last edited by hulugu; Dec 5, 2012 at 10:20 AM.
hulugu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:03 AM   #13
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
FWIW, the way I read it (based on the posted summary - I haven't read the actual bill) is that the service can be denied by a facility, but if it is denied it must be denied to EVERYBODY by the facility. So if a facility objects to providing a basic checkup to Group A people, it must deny basic checkups to everybody, regardless of whether they are members for Group A.

So a facility could say "No blood tansfusions for anybody" but would not be allowed to say "No blood transfusions for hunters."
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:13 AM   #14
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.
Funny. I have been told "love it or leave it' quite a few times as a "libertarian" when mentioning my distaste for paying taxes. It's a very silly notion that when you object to oppression, you should just forsake your property and life to change location.

It's not a libertarian point of view to say move to another state. That is completely false. Libertarianism opposes such bias.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:14 AM   #15
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
FWIW, the way I read it (based on the posted summary - I haven't read the actual bill) is that the service can be denied by a facility, but if it is denied it must be denied to EVERYBODY by the facility. So if a facility objects to providing a basic checkup to Group A people, it must deny basic checkups to everybody, regardless of whether they are members for Group A.

So a facility could say "No blood tansfusions for anybody" but would not be allowed to say "No blood transfusions for hunters."
That's a good point, but it still creates really interesting inequities in care based on the arbitrary doctor "conscience." And, it gives doctors the ability to garner financial recompense should they be forced to give care.

It's a terrible bill regardless.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:21 PM   #16
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Funny. I have been told "love it or leave it' quite a few times as a "libertarian" when mentioning my distaste for paying taxes. It's a very silly notion that when you object to oppression, you should just forsake your property and life to change location.

It's not a libertarian point of view to say move to another state. That is completely false. Libertarianism opposes such bias.
Then you need to talk to your fellow libertarians, because that's exactly the kind of thing I hear form you guys about marriage equality.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:28 PM   #17
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Then you need to talk to your fellow libertarians, because that's exactly the kind of thing I hear form you guys about marriage equality.
I'm no big fan of the LP, but:

Quote:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
And any actual libertarian believes the same.

If you've met a "libertarian" (not to be confused with conservatives or Tea Party) and they claimed that you should just move states or anything other than "I agree you should be able to marry whom you want" (though they may be against the proposition of state run marriage license all together, which is a pro-gay marriage stance inherently) than they aren't a libertarian because they oppose basic libertarian principles.

So whomever you met that said "love it or leave it" they were using a fallacy, and they were spouting a non-libertarian point of view.

Hope that clears things up.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:47 PM   #18
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
This is sad. The war against us continues. I'm sure our libertarian members will just say, "move to another state". This is the problem I have with the libertarian POV. You should not have to move to another state to get proper health care.
Here's an applicable song:


We call the heartland not very smart land, IQ's are very low but threat levels are high.
They got a mandate, they don't want man-dates, they got so many hates and people to despise.

In the dust bowl, cerebral black hole, the average weight is well over 200 pounds.
I hate to generalize, but have you seen the thighs, most haven't seen their genitalia in a while.

Maybe that's why they're so scared of us We've concerns other than fear and hunger pangs.

Queers, transgends, and lesbians, vegans and vegetarians.
All you brownish red and yellow ones come and join us on the coast.

No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt.

They've blown out the fire under the melting pot, the red blood of America is starting to clot.
No compromise, no sight through others' eyes, they're just flies spreading pieces of ****.
You gotta emigrate, stop living in hate, what makes this country great is dwelling on either side.

They don't want visitors in Jesusland.
They want life canned and bland in the fatherland.

We want people with college degrees, drug use experience and STD's.
People with open-minded philosophies, come hug California trees.
Cultural revolution now, neo-conservatives run outta town.
We're gonna burn Orange County down,
And then we're off to Riverside,
Bakersfield and Fresno too,
then we're coming after you.

The fear stricken, born again Christian, they got a vision a homogenized state.
Textbook decline, Intelligent Design.
They got bill nye on the list execrate.

They don't want visitors in Jesusland.
They want life canned and bland in the fatherland.

Punk Rockers and emo kids, people doing things the church forbids. Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists we're moving out of jesusland.
Art students and thespians, excluding country, all the musicians.
We want all hookers and comedians, nihilists are welcome too.

No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt.

NOFX

because I prefer the direct approach just break their noses
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:46 PM   #19
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroony View Post
There is something called the Hippocratic Oath, which determines that no medical professional should refuse to treat anyone based on ethical or moral justification - any nurse or doctor supporting that bill should have their license revoked.

Frankly, certain Americans should get over that religion-thing because in the long run it doesn't do them any good nor do they any good by discriminating others (What would Jesus think?). And medical professionals should be ashamed to even think of narrowing down the number of people they "should" treat, it's plain disgusting.
You beat me to it.

But I also pose this: In relation to the Hippocratic Oath, you have the following two English translations:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Oath, English Translation 1
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippocratic Oath, English Translation 2
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
Emphasis on the bold. What this doesn't get into is what if your choice to NOT do anything has the opposite effect and does harm to their patient? This would mean that their choosing to not treat a patient due to their conscience would do more harm than throwing their conscience aside and helping them, violating the oath they swore.

It falls into the logic that not choosing is a choice in itself. A good analogy: with the topic of abortion, those who are pro-life are inherently pro-choice; they chose to be pro-life. They consciously made the choice. That same analogy could apply here. So what happens when this law and the actions to release them of all liability puts them in violation of an oath they swore to when they entered this field?

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:13 PM   #20
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I'm no big fan of the LP, but:



And any actual libertarian believes the same.

If you've met a "libertarian" (not to be confused with conservatives or Tea Party) and they claimed that you should just move states or anything other than "I agree you should be able to marry whom you want" (though they may be against the proposition of state run marriage license all together, which is a pro-gay marriage stance inherently) than they aren't a libertarian because they oppose basic libertarian principles.

So whomever you met that said "love it or leave it" they were using a fallacy, and they were spouting a non-libertarian point of view.

Hope that clears things up.
Then would you say Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

Quote:
Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.
His belief here would indeed force many to move to another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:18 PM   #21
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Then would you say Ron Paul is not a libertarian?



His belief here would indeed force many to move to another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
No, he's not
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:25 PM   #22
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
No, he's not
I see. So only people you agree with can be libertarians? Be sure to let Mr Paul know.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:28 PM   #23
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
I see. So only people you agree with can be libertarians? Be sure to let Mr Paul know.
Typical. Instead of learning about something you are apparently confused about, you throw in Ron Paul, who runs on a Republican platform every year, not a Libertarian one, claim that he's a Libertarian, point out where he isn't a libertarian, then tell me that since I disagree with his stance that Libertarians are only people I agree with.

If you ever feel like learning about something, start here:

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

Whenever you want to have an adult conversation about the subject not filled with strawmen and malice, let me know.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:49 PM   #24
steve knight
macrumors 65816
 
steve knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
So a christian who does not follow Christ but expects Christ to save them it is just hard to understand. At this rate the only Christians that will be left are the hard core ones everyone else will be fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.
__________________
CNCrouting.biz
steve knight is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 07:15 PM   #25
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Typical. Instead of learning about something you are apparently confused about, you throw in Ron Paul, who runs on a Republican platform every year, not a Libertarian one, claim that he's a Libertarian, point out where he isn't a libertarian, then tell me that since I disagree with his stance that Libertarians are only people I agree with.

If you ever feel like learning about something, start here:

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

Whenever you want to have an adult conversation about the subject not filled with strawmen and malice, let me know.
The quit being disingenuous in the first place. Mr Paul considers himself a Libertarian. I am not to the one to argue with, he is.

Hey, I'll have an adult conversation when you start acknowledging reality.

Quote:
Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, and politician who has been serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, since 1997. He is a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. He is a member of the Libertarian Party[1] and Republican Party. He holds libertarian views and is a critic of American foreign, domestic, and monetary policies, including the military–industrial complex, the War on Drugs, and the Federal Reserve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20...libertarianism

And, looks like a lot of people consider Paul to be a Libertarian:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Last edited by leekohler; Dec 5, 2012 at 07:23 PM.
leekohler is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Excerpts of Apple Executives' Senate Committee Testimony on Tax Policy MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 311 Jun 10, 2013 06:48 PM
Jon Stewart Takes on Apple's Appearance in Front of Senate Committee MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 91 Jun 1, 2013 12:08 AM
Apple CEO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer Testify In Front of Senate Committee on Tax Strategies [Hearing Over] MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 547 May 28, 2013 07:33 PM
Tim Cook Defends Apple's Tax Record Ahead of Senate Committee Appearance [Updated] MacRumors Politics, Religion, Social Issues 116 May 23, 2013 01:06 PM
Tim Cook to Testify In Front of Senate Committee Over Apple's Tax Practices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 205 May 21, 2013 12:15 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC