Dribbles of Thought
28/3/05 09:42![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eredienI was going to post a hugely insightful essay here about the new legislation pending in Michigan, which would allow healthcare providers and groups there to choose who to treat based on their religious convictions. In other words, "if you think being gay is bad, you don't have to treat gay people if you don't want to, except in cases of an emergency."
Then I realized that writing such an essay would make myself angry and ill, and other people who read this would get angry too. And while getting angry about it is good, angry lj comments are less productive then letters to your senator (write!).
So, I thought about it and boiled my rantings down to four points. Here's why I think this legislation, if enacted, will not stand:
1.) The Hippocratic Oath. "First, do no harm." How many times can a doctor or nurse--whose entire point and goal and training focuses on how to stop pain--really ignore that little voice in the back of their head telling them "you're screwing up!" before their false conscience and smugness break?
2.) According to this legislation, healthcare providers/insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate on basis of race. How long before a gay African-American man, or a lesbian Indian woman, gets desperate and strong enough to call someone's bluff? "You say you won't treat me because I'm gay, but I think you're disciminating against me because I'm black. See you in court."
3.) Who defines "emergency?" The provider is required to help in "emergencies." Is a displaced kneecap really an "emergency?" I mean, you limped in here, right? -- Sooner or later, someone is going to die because someone underestimated an "emergency" so that they could pretend to be a morally superior human being. And when that happens, there's going to be lawsuits and news coverage. It's a shame that someone would have to die--and that lots of money would have to be thrown around in their name--before the issue was resolved, and it's a shame that those things form much of the basis of the current American understanding of power. But it might work.
4.) God doesn't want to see people in pain (it really is that simple sometimes). For every misguided nurse practitioner, a clinic will be opened down the street. For every insurer with a bigoted charter clause, a doctor will see a patient not as a cause or a threat, but as a person.
--
In other news, the Shakespeare reading was great--I so enjoyed pretending to be Suffolk! And my new job starts tomorrow.
Then I realized that writing such an essay would make myself angry and ill, and other people who read this would get angry too. And while getting angry about it is good, angry lj comments are less productive then letters to your senator (write!).
So, I thought about it and boiled my rantings down to four points. Here's why I think this legislation, if enacted, will not stand:
1.) The Hippocratic Oath. "First, do no harm." How many times can a doctor or nurse--whose entire point and goal and training focuses on how to stop pain--really ignore that little voice in the back of their head telling them "you're screwing up!" before their false conscience and smugness break?
2.) According to this legislation, healthcare providers/insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate on basis of race. How long before a gay African-American man, or a lesbian Indian woman, gets desperate and strong enough to call someone's bluff? "You say you won't treat me because I'm gay, but I think you're disciminating against me because I'm black. See you in court."
3.) Who defines "emergency?" The provider is required to help in "emergencies." Is a displaced kneecap really an "emergency?" I mean, you limped in here, right? -- Sooner or later, someone is going to die because someone underestimated an "emergency" so that they could pretend to be a morally superior human being. And when that happens, there's going to be lawsuits and news coverage. It's a shame that someone would have to die--and that lots of money would have to be thrown around in their name--before the issue was resolved, and it's a shame that those things form much of the basis of the current American understanding of power. But it might work.
4.) God doesn't want to see people in pain (it really is that simple sometimes). For every misguided nurse practitioner, a clinic will be opened down the street. For every insurer with a bigoted charter clause, a doctor will see a patient not as a cause or a threat, but as a person.
--
In other news, the Shakespeare reading was great--I so enjoyed pretending to be Suffolk! And my new job starts tomorrow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
28/3/05 15:27 (UTC)And you're right- hopefully such legislation would fail.
(no subject)
31/3/05 04:14 (UTC)(no subject)
28/3/05 18:31 (UTC)As for the law, it saddens me that a supposedly civilised country can even contemplate something like that. If healthcare 'professionals' aren't willing to deal with people needing their help on such a basis, they have the choice to get out of medicine -- it's that simple.
(no subject)
31/3/05 04:15 (UTC)It's an okay job. Better than the last one and temp-to-perm, which means a lot. And good people. And the possibility of health insurance, which rocks.
(no subject)
29/3/05 02:25 (UTC)(no subject)
29/3/05 08:58 (UTC)It depends on what medical school you go to as to what you swear to do and not do.
(no subject)
31/3/05 04:15 (UTC)(no subject)
1/4/05 06:38 (UTC)(no subject)
29/3/05 08:57 (UTC)Wingèd wolf?
(no subject)
31/3/05 04:13 (UTC)(no subject)
31/3/05 17:39 (UTC)I was just trying to make you smile.