Don't like Gays? Soon you won't need to help them - even if you're a paramedic!

In an effort to clear the backlog of diaries I want to get posted in preparation for tonight's State of the Union Address, I have managed a Blogging Hat Trick - three unrelated posts in one day!

The Washington Post has an article discussing one of the more frightening aspects of modern Republicanism. It seems that at least twelve states are considering legislation that would protect health workers from being forced to provide care that "conflicts with their personal beliefs."

These laws cover a wide range of procedures and 'ethical quagmires' that may face your friendly neighborhood health care ideologue. About half provide a legal defense for pharmacists who won't hand out the 'morning after' pill. The idiocy of both the pharmacist for not knowing that the pill isn't an 'abortion' pill (it simply prevents the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus - nothing happens that doesn't happen every time the woman ovulates) and the legislators for creating a precedent that is dangerous and un-American. Pharmacy is a 4 year degree and anybody who is qualified to dispense drugs should know enough about them to know that their position is ridiculous. Lawmakers, well, the kind that are putting forth this kind of legislation, aren't really known for high powered thought. Their constituencies, however, should be smart enough to vote them out of office.

That in itself is bad enough. The remainder "are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians."

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, "even providing treatment to gays and lesbians."

Now it seems to me that in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, and research involving stem cells are already fields that are self selecting for people who agree that these are good things. If your doctor doesn't believe in physician-assisted suicide, you can find another one that does. The same concept applies to stem cell therapy and in-vitro fertilization. (Any in-vitro doctor that won't provide the same services for any woman of equal medical fitness is a bigot that should be run out of the profession.) But "providing treatment to gays and lesbians" is a shocking and frightening addition to the list.

Can an ER doctor refuse to treat a victim of a car crash because they're gay? Does that person just lay there and die? While there is time for a lesbian couple to shop around for a doctor that will provide in-vitro fertilization if the same couple is hit by a truck on their way home, they deserve the same treatment.

It shocks me that I even have to write that down.

Once we've crossed this line, where does it end? What if a person is unconscious upon arrival - is it enough that the victim 'look' gay? Will it say "GAY" on the person's chart in large enough letters to prevent any unsuspecting nurse or orderly from having to actually having to say hello to a homosexual?

This is so wrong and so un-American it boggles the mind. Every person is within their rights to believe what they want about homosexuality. The moment you become a doctor or nurse or any other person that may provide medical care, you have an obligation to put those beliefs aside to do your job or you don't get into a profession that puts you in that situation.

This country is going backwards at a rate that scares me.

Also, condolences to the family of Coretta Scot King. This country and the world is diminished without her.

No comments: