New Florida bill allow doctors to refuse treatment

[Her Dotness]

What ought to alarm us all hinges on this: "The law allows any medical provider...the right to deny care on the basis of any conscientious objection."

Notice those last three words. That means literally ANYTHING some provider decides is personally objectionable.

Same-sex parents bring their child in for stitches. This law is vague enough a provider could refuse to do something that simple for a child just because they don't have "morally correct" parents.

Folks, we are rapidly heading for autocratic takeovers of many state governments. Some are nearly if not already there. Fill in the blanks regarding this state's status.

 

[CamillaF]

It's not Congress, it's the FL state legislature....

i stand corrected

 

[Suger Mag]

I do find it interesting (sad and scary too) that in just a couple of short years, the ideology in FL (and elsewhere in the country as well) has flipped from "dont you DARE tell the individual what to do" in regards to their bodily autonomy when it was in response to masks and vaccines.... to a total flip flop to: "hell ya lets tell the individual what to do because I object to your decisions based on my personal or religious morals and will now block YOUR choice"

 

[starlite_]

I do find it interesting (sad and scary too) that in just a couple of short years, the ideology in FL (and elsewhere in the country as well) has flipped from "dont you DARE tell the individual what to do" in regards to their bodily autonomy when it was in response to masks and vaccines.... to a total flip flop to: "hell ya lets tell the individual what to do because I object to your decisions based on my personal or religious morals and will now block YOUR choice"

I like to call it ~hypocrisy~. "Don't tell me what to do (to protect others) while I tell you what to do with your own body."

 

[Greg P.]

The legislation is way to vague

That is done on purpose with legislation like this. The laws are written vaguely enough where people err on the side of caution and refrain from doing something that would technically be legal because they're scared of running afoul of the law. There were similar concerns with the Don't Say Gay bill. It's incredibly vague and doesn't specify what topics are actually prohibited, so certain speech will be suppressed even if it was technically legal. Can a teacher put a photo of their same sex spouse on their desk? Who knows, but many teachers won't due to fear of being sued by some overzealous parent. So Florida has effectively restricted freedom of speech for people in the LGBTQ community without explicitly doing it.

When you're trying to outlaw a behavior or certain speech you write a law that's very vague, tell anyone with concerns that it may ban something specific "it doesn't specifically prohibit that, of course that is legal" while at the same time knowing damn well people will stop that behavior because they're scared. This way you can "outlaw" things without actually doing it.

 

[ak517]

Legislation like this also has implications for medical schools being able to educate future providers. If there are restrictions in states, even vague, ill-defined ones, med schools may choose not to teach them, leading to fewer providers even able to provide care, let alone willing. Clearly this particular piece of legislation is about a doctor’s moral willingness to provide certain treatments, but there are other bills specifically regarding abortion and gender affirming care that have far wider impacts than we may initially realize.

Oh and not to mention how bills like these may encourage doctors to leave rural areas for more urban hospitals or even different states entirely, weakening care for the general population. These bills are often meant to incite a visceral reaction, which takes the front and center focus and detracts from broader implications.

 

[Kwami]

What doctors are being forced to provide gender affirming care?

This law isn't saying doctors who don't want to provide gender-affirming care don't have to. This law is saying you can deny medical treatment if you have a moral objection. From the article:

"The law allows any medical provider — including doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, pharmacists, mental health professionals, lab technicians, nursing home workers, and hospital administrators — as well as insurance companies and payment entities, the right to deny care on the basis of any conscientious objection."

"The newly signed law says denial of care can’t be based on a patient’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but it provides no protections on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

So, it seems like they're making exclusions for protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, national origin). They're missing quite a few. Two of the classes that they're missing are sexual orientation and gender identity, which are protected classes as of the 2020 Bostock decision. I know that Wikipedia is Wikipedia, but their summary is decent:

"On June 15, 2020, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision covering all three cases that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]. According to Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion, that is so because employers discriminating against gay or transgender employees accept a certain conduct (e.g., attraction to women) in employees of one sex but not in employees of the other sex."

I know that Bostock was a question of employment, but the principle doesn't change just because we're talking about medical care instead. So, I don't see how this new law stands up in court.

 

[JulieBeeRN]

What ought to alarm us all hinges on this: "The law allows any medical provider...the right to deny care on the basis of any conscientious objection."

Notice those last three words. That means literally ANYTHING some provider decides is personally objectionable.

Same-sex parents bring their child in for stitches. This law is vague enough a provider could refuse to do something that simple for a child just because they don't have "morally correct" parents.

Folks, we are rapidly heading for autocratic takeovers of many state governments. Some are nearly if not already there. Fill in the blanks regarding this state's status.

And conscientious objection is “based on a sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief”. So basically almost anything. AND the bill starts out by saying “the Legislature finds the right on conscious is central to the practice of medicine.”

My head is SO FULL of things that I can’t say on this message board. I am absolutely disgusted. I guess, “do no harm” really means “do no harm unless you ’morally’ object“

 

[xipotec]

And conscientious objection is “based on a sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief”. So basically almost anything. AND the bill starts out by saying “the Legislature finds the right on conscious is central to the practice of medicine.”

My head is SO FULL of things that I can’t say on this message board. I am absolutely disgusted. I guess, “do no harm” really means “do no harm unless you ’morally’ object“

Well to be fair, most of us , as medical providers, do not give a damn about what people do in their private lives.

They are patients regardless of who they are in the rest of the world.

Ask any ER doc who has to treat the drunk driver and his victims, or the driver by shooter and their targets. We are trained to treat them both, equally.

So now, thats no longer the case? Desantis and his cronies cannot just take ethical treatment and outlaw it.

Any medical providor worth a damn, knows this and lives it daily. We do not need a government entity to "allow" us to be bigots in whom we treat.

If your are going to object to treating "certain" people, you have no business in medicine and should find another careeer.

 

[RedHead0186]

Legislation like this also has implications for medical schools being able to educate future providers. If there are restrictions in states, even vague, ill-defined ones, med schools may choose not to teach them, leading to fewer providers even able to provide care, let alone willing. Clearly this particular piece of legislation is about a doctor’s moral willingness to provide certain treatments, but there are other bills specifically regarding abortion and gender affirming care that have far wider impacts than we may initially realize.

Oh and not to mention how bills like these may encourage doctors to leave rural areas for more urban hospitals or even different states entirely, weakening care for the general population. These bills are often meant to incite a visceral reaction, which takes the front and center focus and detracts from broader implications.

It goes beyond medical schools. Residency/fellowship programs have similar issues. Some specialties have requirements that programs must ensure trainees are competent in certain areas/treatments/procedures/etc.; however, local laws make it illegal for trainees to get exposure to these areas. So it's a trickle down (trickle up?) issue.

Data from the most recent Match (how medical school graduates get placed into residencies) shows that programs in states with these type of laws had lower match rates than similar programs in states without these types of laws-especially in certain specialties.

Sorry for what may be too 'nail on the head' for this board, but I work in graduate medical education so this is all very close to/for me.

 

[Lewisc]

That is done on purpose with legislation like this. The laws are written vaguely enough where people err on the side of caution and refrain from doing something that would technically be legal because they're scared of running afoul of the law. There were similar concerns with the Don't Say Gay bill. It's incredibly vague and doesn't specify what topics are actually prohibited, so certain speech will be suppressed even if it was technically legal. Can a teacher put a photo of their same sex spouse on their desk? Who knows, but many teachers won't due to fear of being sued by some overzealous parent. So Florida has effectively restricted freedom of speech for people in the LGBTQ community without explicitly doing it.

When you're trying to outlaw a behavior or certain speech you write a law that's very vague, tell anyone with concerns that it may ban something specific "it doesn't specifically prohibit that, of course that is legal" while at the same time knowing damn well people will stop that behavior because they're scared. This way you can "outlaw" things without actually doing it.

Intentionally wording a law in such a way that people don't know exactly what is illegal. Vague enough to discourage legal behavior, maybe even behavior which can't be illegal.

I have no idea how the courts would rule. I don't see how any moral or ethical person could think this is fair or good.

 

[Smugpugmug]

Absolutely disgusting. It's insane that anyone would defend a law like this but nothing surprises me these days. As an LGBT woman, I will not be moving to Florida or any state with policies like this. My heart hurts for LGBT people that are affected by this, especially with the banning of all healthcare for trans people in Florida (and that includes adults).

Like others have said, if your morals prevent you from treating patients, then you shouldn't be a healthcare provider.

 

[Lilsia]

I don't see how any moral or ethical person could think this is fair or good.

And here is the crux of it. The lack of morality and ethics by so many people. They are so angry and worked up that they can't think rationally anymore. It is a mob mentality that they will go along with whatever their "side" says, irrespective of any rational thought. It is scary how so many people allow themselves to be brainwashed and made fools of.

 

[Greg P.]

I don't see how any moral or ethical person could think this is fair or good.

The people who are writing the bills are definitely not moral or ethical and are doing it on purpose. But it's also part of the strategy to make it easier to get agreement from people who aren't paying attention or who aren't 100% on board with laws like this. If you can tell someone with doubts "well it doesn't explicitly ban behaviors X, Y, and Z" they'll think the outcome of the bill is more reasonable than it actually will be. It's a tool for immoral law makers to trick ignorant voters into agreeing with them. And I'm not saying that to excuse ignorant voters, in 2023 it's not excusable for people with privilege to be ignorant about the consequences of their votes.

 

[Greg P.]

Legislation like this also has implications for medical schools being able to educate future providers. If there are restrictions in states, even vague, ill-defined ones, med schools may choose not to teach them, leading to fewer providers even able to provide care, let alone willing.

This is already happening in many states after Roe was overturned. Some abortion laws have been written so vaguely we're starting to see OBGYNs just pack up and leave their states to practice elsewhere. It's going to leave at risk communities without any care options at all and the consequences are going to be horrible.