Via www.Americablog.org

     A package of new bills passed recently in the Michigan House is supposed to prevent doctors from being required to act against their moral beliefs.  It is expected to pass the Republican dominated Senate as well.

     Of course, there are exceptions.  The doctor cannot discriminate against someone because of religion, race, national origin, age, or gender.  Hmmmm…what’s missing here?  So, it’s OK for a doctor to refuse to treat someone based on their sexual orientation?

     Of course not, say the bills Republican sponsors.  They aren’t singling anyone out…so…why not put “sexual orientation” on the list?  One wonders.

     You might think that this is just a way of protecting pro-life doctors form having to perform abortions, except there’s already a State law that covers that.  The same existing law also exempts pro-life doctors from having to fill prescriptions for the morning-after-pill.

      Also part of the concern is the use of future technologies and treatments resulting form stem cell research and cloning technology.  Doctors who disapprove of such treatments would be protected from being prosecuted or sued for not using those techniques.

     The questions not covered are more disturbing; would they not be liable if they refused to tell their patients about treatments that are available that the doctor does not approve of, but that the patient could try if they found another doctor who didn’t have such biases?  Should they have to disclose their biases before taking in patients? (Oh good!  More micro print to read at the doctor’s office!)  What if they actively misinformed their patients based on their beliefs?  Just how protected are they?  Do they have the right to keep their patients ignorant?

     So now I’m thinking that if I were living in Michigan, I’m not going to want to risk having a Catholic or Southern Baptist doctor.  Maybe not a Christian doctor at all.  Does that make me a bigot?  Maybe, down the road, I find out I have MS.  I’m not going to want to risk missing  out on a revolutionary new treatment because it’s against my DOCTORS morals.

     OK, now.  Are you ready for the punch-line?  The same package of bills also allows INSURERS to refuse to pay for treatments that violate ethical and moral standards expressed in their by laws.

 So if you work for a private company, can your anti-stem-cell research boss require your company's group insurance to be through what he considers to be a "moral" insurance company, which only works with anti-stem-cell research doctors?  Can your boss dictate what treatment you will receive based on his "morals"?  Can he do that and you have no recourse to the law?  I'm just asking

     Nice.

     Behold the future:  When the greatest selling point for doctors and insurance companies will be their total lack of morals and ethics, as that is the only way to guarantee decent service.