The Hypocritic Oath

[jimbow8]

No, that is not a typo! Paul, I am very interested in hearing your views from both a professional and legal standpoint. I'll go out on a limb and say that you are disgusted, but doesn't this go against EVERYTHING that a doctor stands for?!?! EVERYTHING?!?!

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm)

I am not gay, and I honestly have no close friends that are, but this article depresses the hell out of me. The Slope just keeps getting Slipperier and Slipperier!!!

[Scott Hajek]

No, that is not a typo! Paul, I am very interested in hearing your views from both a professional and legal standpoint. I'll go out on a limb and say that you are disgusted, but doesn't this go against EVERYTHING that a doctor stands for?!?! EVERYTHING?!?!

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm)

I am not gay, and I honestly have no close friends that are, but this article depresses the hell out of me. The Slope just keeps getting Slipperier and Slipperier!!!
I'd say we should let Michigan out of the US, but Canada wouldn't want them either.

This is by far the most unconstitutional act ever! What about "equal protection under the law"? Guess that only applies if your Republican, Catholic and a complete asshole. (Pardon me).

[Ken Valentine]

I'd say we should let Michigan out of the US, but Canada wouldn't want them either.

This is by far the most unconstitutional act ever! What about "equal protection under the law"? Guess that only applies if your Republican, Catholic and a complete asshole. (Pardon me).

I guess that's one way for the Catholic Church to eliminate their priest problem. :D

In another sense, it just means more patients for those doctors who don't have these hang-ups. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if you examine the U.S. Constitution -- and perhaps the Michigan Constitution as well -- you will find that there is nothing that implicitly or explicitly grants the gummymint any power or authority to make any legislation what-so-ever on the subject of medicine. The whole proceeding is a tyranny, a usurpation, and a crime on the part of the legislature. The legislators who wrote -- and vote in favor -- of this piece of garbage should all be politely escorted to the nearest street lamps and respectfully hanged!

Ken V.

[fpw]

No, that is not a typo! Paul, I am very interested in hearing your views from both a professional and legal standpoint. I'll go out on a limb and say that you are disgusted, but doesn't this go against EVERYTHING that a doctor stands for?!?! EVERYTHING?!?!

It's against the spirit of the oath. That said, doctors are as human as anyone else, and some may feel very uncomfortable with a gay patient (which might say more about the doctor than the patient). It could also derive from the worry about contracting HIV which, if you're a surgeon or a surgical nurse, is a real concern.

I've gays, lesbians, and even a surgically realigned woman in my practice. You need to be aware of the health concerns unique to gay males, but other than that, I don't make a distinction.

The legislation, as reported, is idiotic. No patient, straight or gay, is going to stay with a doctor who's obviously uncomfortable with them. So it's a non-problem that works itself out after a couple of visits.

What may not be so idiotic about it is that it could be a response to the truly idiotic privacy rules around HIV. I can tell you horror stories about doctors or nurses or EMTs who, despite all precautions, have been exposed to a patient's blood (straight or gay) and can't find out if that person's ever had an HIV or Hepatitis B or C test and if it was positive or negative. Some of these people are patients and you cannot imagine the anxiety they suffer, or the ripple effect of the uncertainty through their lives, and through families and friends as they themselves get serieally tested for up to a year or longer.

It's simply not fair that people who spend their days helping others in times of trauma should be subjected to that nightmare.

[Ken Valentine]

It's simply not fair that people who spend their days helping others in times of trauma should be subjected to that nightmare.

My wife worked High-Risk L&D for 15 years. Hepatitis was a big worry. A VERY big worry. Especially in a large Medical Center like the one she worked at.

As sad as it is for those who get the HIV, with as much as is known about transmission these days, they almost have to be asking for it. So I will reserve my concern for those who DON'T ask for it . . . Doctors, Nurses, and Infants.

Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

No, that is not a typo! Paul, I am very interested in hearing your views from both a professional and legal standpoint. I'll go out on a limb and say that you are disgusted, but doesn't this go against EVERYTHING that a doctor stands for?!?! EVERYTHING?!?!

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm)

I am not gay, and I honestly have no close friends that are, but this article depresses the hell out of me. The Slope just keeps getting Slipperier and Slipperier!!!

How would the issue even come up? Or is Michigan also tattooing gays' foreheads with an identifying symbol these days?

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

It's against the spirit of the oath. That said, doctors are as human as anyone else, and some may feel very uncomfortable with a gay patient (which might say more about the doctor than the patient). It could also derive from the worry about contracting HIV which, if you're a surgeon or a surgical nurse, is a real concern.

I've gays, lesbians, and even a surgically realigned woman in my practice. You need to be aware of the health concerns unique to gay males, but other than that, I don't make a distinction.

The legislation, as reported, is idiotic. No patient, straight or gay, is going to stay with a doctor who's obviously uncomfortable with them. So it's a non-problem that works itself out after a couple of visits.

What may not be so idiotic about it is that it could be a response to the truly idiotic privacy rules around HIV. I can tell you horror stories about doctors or nurses or EMTs who, despite all precautions, have been exposed to a patient's blood (straight or gay) and can't find out if that person's ever had an HIV or Hepatitis B or C test and if it was positive or negative. Some of these people are patients and you cannot imagine the anxiety they suffer, or the ripple effect of the uncertainty through their lives, and through families and friends as they themselves get serieally tested for up to a year or longer.

It's simply not fair that people who spend their days helping others in times of trauma should be subjected to that nightmare.
I see your point, but consideration of personal risk didn't deter Dr. Edith Stone from shuttling over to the plague-stricken passenger ship in THE ROLLING STONES. ("I'm a doctor, Roger.") Isn't a person-in-need a person-in-need? The article didn't give much information about the bill's origin. It would be interesting to know more about its genesis and legislative history.

[jimbow8]

How would the issue even come up? Or is Michigan also tattooing gays' foreheads with an identifying symbol these days?
I'm guessing that this has mainly to do with AIDS related diseases. I would assume you have to disclose to your doctor or a new doctor that you have AIDS and then they can refuse treatment.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

I'm guessing that this has mainly to do with AIDS related diseases. I would assume you have to disclose to your doctor or a new doctor that you have AIDS and then they can refuse treatment.

That would make sense. But what about heterosexuals with AIDS (relatively few, but they exist.) Or folks who caught HIV through dirty needles? Why does the law single-out gays rather than stating flat-out that a doctor doesn't have to treat AIDS sufferers?

[jimbow8]

That would make sense. But what about heterosexuals with AIDS (relatively few, but they exist.) Or folks who caught HIV through dirty needles? Why does the law single-out gays rather than stating flat-out that a doctor doesn't have to treat AIDS sufferers?
Because having AIDS isn't an "abomination to God" but being gay is! :rolleyes: And, no, I don't mean that, I am being sarcastic!

Note: I am a Catholic and (assuming I ever get around to going to church again) I am seriously considering confronting the pastor about how the Church can justify stances like this and their recent decree about not giving communion to Pro-Choicers. (corrected)

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Because having AIDS isn't an "abomination to God" but being gay is! :rolleyes: And, no, I don't mean that, I am being sarcastic!

Note: I am a Catholic and (assuming I ever get around to going to church again) I am seriously considering confronting the pastor about how the Church can justify stances like this and their recent decree about not giving communion to Pro-Lifers.

Whatever happened to "Hate the sin, love the sinner?" (Did you mean Pro-Choicers in the last word of your post?)

[jimbow8]

Whatever happened to "Hate the sin, love the sinner?" (Did you mean Pro-Choicers in the last word of your post?)
Yes, I did. Thanks. I'll change it.

Hey Ken, you missed that one!! :D

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Because having AIDS isn't an "abomination to God" but being gay is! :rolleyes: And, no, I don't mean that, I am being sarcastic!

Note: I am a Catholic and (assuming I ever get around to going to church again) I am seriously considering confronting the pastor about how the Church can justify stances like this and their recent decree about not giving communion to Pro-Choicers. (corrected)

Well, I think he'd say something like this: "If you want to be a Catholic, there are certain rules you must obey. If you cannot abide by these teachings, God bless you and good luck to you. But if you don't obey these rules, you cannot be a Catholic, and you cannot receive Holy Communion." And you know what?--he'd be right.

[Biggles]

Well, I think he'd say something like this: "If you want to be a Catholic, there are certain rules you must obey. If you cannot abide by these teachings, God bless you and good luck to you. But if you don't obey these rules, you cannot be a Catholic, and you cannot receive Holy Communion." And you know what?--he'd be right.

I have to concur. I was brought up Catholic (Eastern rite) and converted to Eastern Orthodox when I married my wife. We are even more traditionalist than Roman Catholics in these areas. I certainly have a right to disagree with my church (though I don't), but that does not give me the right to expect a 2000 year old church to change its doctrine to conform to my beliefs. If John Kerry wants to believe in things contrary to Catholic doctrine, so be it, but the Church has every right to excommunicate him, no questions asked. He can't have it both ways. I don't see why this has even become a controversy, quite frankly. If Kerry didn't play on his Catholicism, this issue would have passed long ago. Lots of Catholics are excommunicated (especially divorcees)--that doesn't make them bad people.

[Scott Hajek]

Alas, the Catholic church will take anyone in, or anyone back, if they pay enough.