Ohio allows doctors to deny LGBTQ health care on moral grounds.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ohio-lgbtq-health-care-1193948/

In the latest state-level swing at LGBTQ health care access, Ohio will now allow medical providers to refuse to administer any medical treatment that violates their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.

The language was buried in a 700-page document of last-minute amendments to the state’s two-year budget bill, which Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine approved last Thursday. The provision allows anyone providing medical care — from doctors and nurses to researchers and lab techs – and anyone paying for that care (namely, insurance providers), “the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.”

The bill does not allow medical professionals to deny LGBTQ people care, carte blanche; the exemption “is limited to conscience-based objections to a particular health care service.” It goes on to say that the provider is “responsible for providing all appropriate health care services, other than the particular health care service that conflicts with the medical practitioner’s beliefs or convictions, until another medical practitioner or facility is available.”

But the bill was overwhelmingly opposed by the state’s medical community. “The implications of this policy are immense and could lead to situations where patient care is unacceptably compromised,” read a letter to budget negotiators, signed by the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, the Ohio State Medical Association, and the Ohio Association of Health Plans.

*snip*

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. THAT would be a violation of the Hipocratic Oath Doctors take

To provide care to ALL patients and do no harm to them.

I have a Gay Uncle in Akron. DeWine now says he can be denied Medical care. This is so wrong....

[-misanthroptimist]

2. If they had moral objections to humans...

...then they should have become veterinarians. They are unfit to be doctors if they won't treat humans based on the doctor's personal problems. Period.

[roamer65]

3. So, providers can deny medical access to anti-vaxxers on moral or ethical grounds.

The loose language permits it.

It is amoral and unethical to bring the virus to a medical facility, if you are anti-vaxxer.

[keithbvadu2]

5. or deny medical access to vaxxers on moral or ethical grounds.

Now Catholics/Protestants can refuse to treat each other?

Many Catholics/Protestants consider the other to be false Christians.

[roamer65]

6. Quite the can of worms, eh?

[keithbvadu2]

12. Or deny treatment to black folks based on the Curse of Ham?

Or deny treatment to black folks based on the Curse of Ham?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=curse+of+ham

Freedom of religion.

The Bible has lots of folks to hate.
.

[intheflow]

14. I recently read Stamped From the Beginning in an interfaith book club.

One of the rabbis was horrified to learn about "the curse of Ham." She's a woman in her 50s with multiple advanced degrees in religion and literature and was really upset to hear that Genesis is interpreted this way by some Christians, as the "Old Testament" is the Jewish Torah. This is what happens when freedom of religion is used to weaponize religion.

[KT2000]

4. They should be required

to be on a public list that states they do not treat LGBTQ people for conditions they object to. They should also have to have next to their name in every listing, Discriminates Against Others. There should also be a requirement they cannot charge a patient who is denied care based on the doctors belief and convictions if they do not post a notice. They should not be allowed to question new patients about their LGBTQ status. The risk should be placed squarely on the doctors, etc.

[elleng]

7. on IMmoral grounds.

[johnp3907]

8. How do these people define "morality?"

[Solly Mack]

9. OK. I have a "conscience-based objection" to life-saving care for Conservatives.

That's not all medical care. Just any life-saving care.

I'll take their temp, their blood pressure, draw blood, perform x-rays, run tests, MRIs, assorted other scans, etc.

I'll happily tell them what they're suffering from, afflicted with, or dying from.

I just won't perform CPR, operate on them, prescribe medicines, give shots, perform life-saving treatments etc. - not even the Heimlich maneuver.

If they want play, then let's play.

Fuck'em and all who think like them.

You playing with someone's health care, you're playing with their life.

Show them what that means by making it costly for them.

They're hoping to modify behavior they don't agree with by penalizing the person through denial of health services - do the same to them.

[Midnight Writer]

10. What moral ground is there when a doctor refuses to treat a patient?

[liberalmediaaddict]

11. If only Republicans could stop

shoving their regressive culture war agenda down our throats for just one day it would be great. There's never going to be enough legislation passed or court rulings that will satisfy these people.

[Ms. Toad]

13. Without examining the bill -

this would seem to violate the single subject bill provision of the consttution that tanked massive changes which were embedded in a single bill in the mid-late 90s.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/1999/1999-ohio-123.pdf.

Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution

No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. No law shall be revived or amended unless the new act contains the entire act revived, or the section or sections amended, and the section or sections amended shall be repealed

[Phoenix61]

15. So birth control is out of the MD is Catholic.

As would be tubal ligations and vasectomies.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Assuming the MD decides to exercise the rights granted bill.

My suggestion was that the bill might be able to be declared unconstitutional, because this last-minute insertion is not consistent with the title were single subject of the bill.

When I was working in the Ohio courts from 1998 through 2000, a massive bill with at least 1/2 a dozen different subjects was declared unconstitutional because it covered so many subjects. It was a royal mess, because we had to unwind every single law it changed, then for several years afterwards we had to use a decoder ring to sort out whether it was to be evaluated on appeal based on whether the trial court decided that using the original law or the amended and later declared unconstitutional law. It was a mess.

So there is precedent for finding a law unconstitutional because it contains subjects unrelated to the subject.

[PCIntern]

16. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?????

This is really a sick society. I gotta rethink my plans to stay.

I’ve treated all kinds of creeps including but not limited to rapists and murderers. Because you have to. By morality and (formerly) by law.

[AllaN01Bear]

18. yet another case of them shoving their "morality " down our throats

[AllaN01Bear]

17. how does this balance the budged which you all scream about?

and the drs shouldent be drs .

[AllaN01Bear]

19. yet another case of them shoving their "morality " down our throats

[Initech]

21. Anyone who goes through with this should lose their license.

You have no business being around patients if you're going to practice discrimination. Either help everyone or don't help anyone.

[smirkymonkey]

22. This is so fucked up.

I cannot believe what is happening in this country. And they aren't even in charge yet! Can you imagine what it will be like when they control all branches of government?

[RANDYWILDMAN]

23. If you can't help everybody, you can't help anybody Suspend license

until they figure it out.

Their is no, I only treat certain people in medicine ???

[David__77]

24. Would this allow discrimination on race as well?

…

[jackcooper]

25. That's against the law

Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2022, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Then they shouldn't be doctors.
slope game

[gopiscrap]

28. welcome to DU

[jmowreader]

26. Hmm...

Does this mean if I were an Ohio doctor I could refuse fertility treatments to Quiverfull women having trouble conceiving because I believe no woman should have more than fifteen kids?

[Bettie]

27. Seems like it is loosely enough written

that they can deny care to almost anyone by stating that caring for that person violates their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs.

If they can't or won't perform their job, then they should find other employment.

Same with pharmacists who won't fill "certain" prescriptions. You either do your job or you find another one.

It shouldn't be a surprise that you might have to treat people, you don't have to date them or live with them, you just have to provide care.