4 ms·

The title and article aren't quite telling you the truth. The bill allows providers to decline to provide specific services where those services are in opposit

by ars 3y ago

The title and article aren't quite telling you the truth. The bill allows providers to decline to provide specific services where those services are in opposition to their beliefs. It does not allow them to deny all health care, just those specific services they are opposed to. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

toyg 3y ago
My beliefs are that felons are unredeemable and undeserving of any care provision whatsoever. Hence, "just those specific services" becomes all health care. One should always imagine the worst case when writing good laws. Unfortunately, we all know this law is not meant to be good, it's meant to be a wedge.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  This analysis of "what's the worst that could happen" is insufficient as the appropriate test is "what's the worst that could happen and how often could it happen" Things that can go very wrong, but which in practice we may expect to be extremely rare are not necessarily large problems.
  - toyg 3y ago
    They are still problems. They can be somewhat neutered when they clearly go against the spirit of the law. Unfortunately, this is not the case here: since the spirit of the law is effectively to move decisive power from patient to doctor on grounds of personal and un-objective opinions, aberrations fit pretty nicely inside it. Notice how amendments to protect sexual orientation were rejected; that is very much a "worst case" (and statistically significant) that could have been easily avoided, bringing no ill-effects, additional ambiguity or implementation costs. Still, the legislator explicitly decided that case will fit in the law.
- ledauphin 3y ago
  this bill does not allow exclusion of medical care based on your beliefs about the patient, but based on your beliefs about the medical care in question. [It is deeply weird how uncurious the comments on this particular article are.]
  - positron6000 3y ago
    you keep saying this, but if a doctor believes that a gay person is not a human being because of religion, this bill would allow them to prevent giving that person any kind of care. "i have a persistent cough and need a check up." "sorry, i'm going to deny you a routine check up based on my belief that homosexuality is a sin. providing this procedure to you would be tacit support of homosexuality."
    - ars 3y ago
      That's your personal false interpretation of the text. It's not actually true though. Argue about reality, not your personal boogeyman.
      - positron6000 3y ago
        it isn't a "personal boogeyman" because it's literally in the text of the bill. you seem intent on pretending that this is related solely to "procedures" which apply to everyone when that is plainly not what the bill states. (g) “Health care service” means medical research, medical 98 procedures, or medical services, including, but not limited to, 99 testing; diagnosis; referral; dispensing or administering any 100 drug, medication, or device; psychological therapy or 101 counseling; research; therapy; recordmaking procedures; set up 102 or performance of a surgery or procedure; or any other care or 103 services performed or provided by any health care provider. 104 (h) “Participate” or “participation” means to pay for or 105 take part in any way in providing or facilitating any health 106 care service or any part of such service. furthermore: (5) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—A health care provider or 195 health care payor may not be held civilly liable solely for 196 declining to participate in or pay for a health care service on 197 the basis of a conscience-based objection. meaning, a secretary in a doctor's office can prevent a gay person from making an appointment for any "procedure" at all because doing so would be facilitating a health care service that they personally object to. here's the bill text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/.... it's quite short, you should read it.
hgsgm 3y ago
So like, if I believe that it's immoral to touch a gay person, and I am an EMT who encounters a bleeding gay person?
- ledauphin 3y ago
  Courts are pretty good at awarding large dollar amounts and/or throwing people in jail when they lie to the court. Which is what would be required if someone attempted this, since (as far as I'm aware) there's no religion or cult in history that believes anything remotely approaching this very strange straw man.
- ars 3y ago
  Nope. That will not work because the bill says services not people. The doctor can prefuse to perform specific services, nothing in the bill permits then to refuse to treat specific people.
  - positron6000 3y ago
    > Nope. That will not work because the bill says services not people. no it doesn't. it says that services can be denied based on moral objections. people are the ones that receive those services.
calgarymicro 3y ago
So a doctor could refuse to prescribe PrEP or treat STDs? Also, it does look like services could be denied to specific people based on gender identity or sexuality, per the article. > While the legislation says that health care providers can't use it to deny care based on a patient's race, color, religion, sex or national origin, attempts by Democratic lawmakers to extend those protections to gender identity and sexuality failed.
- ars 3y ago
  > So a doctor could refuse to prescribe PrEP or treat STDs? Only if the doctor felt that the treatment, not the illness, not the person, the treatment. Was against their moral beliefs. The article lies and pretends it's about the person. This is not true.
  - positron6000 3y ago
    > The article lies and pretends it's about the person. This is not true. can you back this up? where in the bill text does it say this? i've read through it and nowhere does it make a differentiation between denying care based on "treatment" vs "person".

by ars 3y ago

toyg 3y ago

My beliefs are that felons are unredeemable and undeserving of any care provision whatsoever. Hence, "just those specific services" becomes all health care. One should always imagine the worst case when writing good laws. Unfortunately, we all know this law is not meant to be good, it's meant to be a wedge.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
This analysis of "what's the worst that could happen" is insufficient as the appropriate test is "what's the worst that could happen and how often could it happen" Things that can go very wrong, but which in practice we may expect to be extremely rare are not necessarily large problems.
- toyg 3y ago
  They are still problems. They can be somewhat neutered when they clearly go against the spirit of the law. Unfortunately, this is not the case here: since the spirit of the law is effectively to move decisive power from patient to doctor on grounds of personal and un-objective opinions, aberrations fit pretty nicely inside it. Notice how amendments to protect sexual orientation were rejected; that is very much a "worst case" (and statistically significant) that could have been easily avoided, bringing no ill-effects, additional ambiguity or implementation costs. Still, the legislator explicitly decided that case will fit in the law.
ledauphin 3y ago
this bill does not allow exclusion of medical care based on your beliefs about the patient, but based on your beliefs about the medical care in question. [It is deeply weird how uncurious the comments on this particular article are.]
- positron6000 3y ago
  you keep saying this, but if a doctor believes that a gay person is not a human being because of religion, this bill would allow them to prevent giving that person any kind of care. "i have a persistent cough and need a check up." "sorry, i'm going to deny you a routine check up based on my belief that homosexuality is a sin. providing this procedure to you would be tacit support of homosexuality."
  - ars 3y ago
    That's your personal false interpretation of the text. It's not actually true though. Argue about reality, not your personal boogeyman.
    - positron6000 3y ago
      it isn't a "personal boogeyman" because it's literally in the text of the bill. you seem intent on pretending that this is related solely to "procedures" which apply to everyone when that is plainly not what the bill states. (g) “Health care service” means medical research, medical 98 procedures, or medical services, including, but not limited to, 99 testing; diagnosis; referral; dispensing or administering any 100 drug, medication, or device; psychological therapy or 101 counseling; research; therapy; recordmaking procedures; set up 102 or performance of a surgery or procedure; or any other care or 103 services performed or provided by any health care provider. 104 (h) “Participate” or “participation” means to pay for or 105 take part in any way in providing or facilitating any health 106 care service or any part of such service. furthermore: (5) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—A health care provider or 195 health care payor may not be held civilly liable solely for 196 declining to participate in or pay for a health care service on 197 the basis of a conscience-based objection. meaning, a secretary in a doctor's office can prevent a gay person from making an appointment for any "procedure" at all because doing so would be facilitating a health care service that they personally object to. here's the bill text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1580/BillText/er/.... it's quite short, you should read it.

hgsgm 3y ago

So like, if I believe that it's immoral to touch a gay person, and I am an EMT who encounters a bleeding gay person?

ledauphin 3y ago
Courts are pretty good at awarding large dollar amounts and/or throwing people in jail when they lie to the court. Which is what would be required if someone attempted this, since (as far as I'm aware) there's no religion or cult in history that believes anything remotely approaching this very strange straw man.
ars 3y ago
Nope. That will not work because the bill says services not people. The doctor can prefuse to perform specific services, nothing in the bill permits then to refuse to treat specific people.
- positron6000 3y ago
  > Nope. That will not work because the bill says services not people. no it doesn't. it says that services can be denied based on moral objections. people are the ones that receive those services.

calgarymicro 3y ago

So a doctor could refuse to prescribe PrEP or treat STDs? Also, it does look like services could be denied to specific people based on gender identity or sexuality, per the article. > While the legislation says that health care providers can't use it to deny care based on a patient's race, color, religion, sex or national origin, attempts by Democratic lawmakers to extend those protections to gender identity and sexuality failed.

ars 3y ago
> So a doctor could refuse to prescribe PrEP or treat STDs? Only if the doctor felt that the treatment, not the illness, not the person, the treatment. Was against their moral beliefs. The article lies and pretends it's about the person. This is not true.
- positron6000 3y ago
  > The article lies and pretends it's about the person. This is not true. can you back this up? where in the bill text does it say this? i've read through it and nowhere does it make a differentiation between denying care based on "treatment" vs "person".