Tennessee bill allows therapist to deny services

[Shiny]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/27/1520812/-Tennessee-governor-signs-inexplicable-bill-allowing-therapists-to-refuse-service-to-LGBT-individuals?detail=facebook

I'd like to know FJs thoughts on this. 

The bill allows therapists to deny services to individuals if their behaviors go against the therapists "sincerely held principles”. The law doesn't specifically mention LGBT individuals (unless I missed that). Could this mean a counselor can deny services to child molesters, murders, or people going through a divorce? Probably. 

[sparkles]

This is 2016, right? I feel like I've got to keep checking because it sure as fuck seems like we're going backwards, not moving ahead. What's next? Will we start counting members of certain population groups as 3/5 of a person again? Will we start demanding that they were special insignia so we can easily tell who's who in order to deny them basic human rights? 

I feel sick to my stomach at what's happening in this country.

[Gobbles]

Well, at least here in Germany you have a couple of hours at the beginning of a therapy where both parties, patient and therapist can judge if they want to do the therapy. Usually the patient switches therapist for sympathetic reasons or else, but the therapist can also say no.

I think this is good. A therapist who feels (for whichever reasons) that he is not able to help the patient should be able to say that.
Would a homophobic therapist be able to help a patient if you force him to? I don't think so. It is the best for both sides if he cancels the therapy. 

Just my opinion (as a gay individual). And well, health care is different here. I have no idea if you can choose a therapist by yourself or how it works in the US. 

[Sundaymorning]

@Gobbles I agree. I'm also gay and especially when it comes to such important and delicate matters such as therapy, it would be highly detrimental to LGBT people if therapists would be forced into working with them.

And generally, no matter what laws you pass to "protect" the LGBT population, if someone doesn't want to have anything to do you with you, cause you are gay, they will always find a way to not hire or fire you, don't give you that flat you want, or, if they already are your landlord, force you out of your home and so on. They'll just make up some pretense or subtly bully you until you can't take it anymore and leave yourself. I have personal experience with these kind of situations, and so do many gay friends of mine.

And if they are forced to do business with you, well, I'd honestly be scared for my wellbeing. For example, I don't even want to know what kind of nasty stuff those homophobic bakers do with the wedding cakes they are obliged to sell gay couples.

[Mercer]

It's already standard practice that if a therapist feels a client is not benefiting from their services for whatever reason, they would transition that client to a different provider. Mental healthcare is a bit different than other service industries or medical care because success depends so heavily on the therapist and client being able to form a rapport, and sometimes that rapport just isn't going to happen. In those cases, it is better for the client to use a different provider or a different therapeutic approach rather than both parties endlessly banging their heads against a wall because the therapist feels they should never release a client. It's already okay for a therapist to say, "I don't think I'm able provide the help you need, but I will assist you to locate someone who can."

That being the case, I don't agree with this bill because it encourages and legitimizes therapists judging their clients in a way that is really not appropriate. If a therapist can't work with a client because of that type of disapproval, that is an issue with the therapist, not the client, and should be treated accordingly. This bill doesn't allow anything that couldn't already be arranged, it just normalizes prejudices that don't have a place in a therapeutic setting.

[Shiny]

Mercer, you said what I've been trying to form in my head. I don't believe anyone should be forced to work with/for someone they don't want to. What it does is normalize prejudices- you said that perfectly. 

[dianapavelovna]

Yeah, I agree with what others have said about finding a good match between provider & patient. But we frankly don't need laws about it. Any licensed therapist is bound by the code of ethics/conduct of their licensing body, which I imagine pretty universally include stipulations about only providing services you're qualified to provide and not engaging in discrimination. So there is pretty much no reason for this law.  

So sick of all these bigoted/homophobic/transphobic bills masquerading as "religious freedom" bills. LGBT people exist, and you have to treat them just as decently as any straight/cis person. Get over it, 'pubs.

[RosyDaisy]

This is a slippery slope towards other types of of anti-LGBTQ legislation. What about medical doctors refusing to treat LGBTQ?

I wonder if Tennessee is aware that the NCAA is considering boycotting venues in states that have have anti-LGBTQ laws? The state could lose LOTS of revenue.

[Sundaymorning]

21 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

This is a slippery slope towards other types of of anti-LGBTQ legislation. What about medical doctors refusing to treat LGBTQ?

I wonder if Tennessee is aware that the NCAA is considering boycotting venues in states that have have anti-LGBTQ laws? The state could lose LOTS of revenue.

I'd say if someone's life is in immediate danger, everybody is obliged to help anybody, unless they themselves would endanger their own life or health. So yes, in such an extreme situation, any doctor should be forced to help. Although I truly hope that I'll never into a situation where I have to get treated by someone who is so homophobic that they wouldn't want to treat me voluntarily...

And I have to say, although I'm not in favour that therapists should be forced to treat people, I also don't like that they always want to make special exceptions for "religious freedom" aka homophobes. As I've said before in another thread, if you have to have these (mostly useless and even counterproductive) anti-discrimination laws, they apply to everybody, and you can't just make exceptions for some special snowflakes.

[sparkles]

I don't believe that a therapist should be forced to treat anyone. In order for therapy to be effective, a connection between therapist and patient is critical, and there's no way that can happen if you're fundamentally at odds with one another. (I saw a therapist back in the 80s who came highly recommended by a good friend. By the fourth visit, however, it was pretty clear that said therapist and I were an extremely poor fit and we both agreed that it wasn't going to work.) I have no doubt that therapists have elected not to treat patients for dubious reasons, but I would imagine they fudged the issue so real reason for their refusal wasn't so obvious. Bills like this one, however, just open the door to all sorts of abuses and pretty much sanction bigotry and discrimination. 

Where will it end? We already have hospitals and doctors refusing to perform certain legal procedures and pharmacists refusing to dispense legally prescribed medications. How long before members of the caring professions are allowed to refuse to provide lifesaving services because of their so called religious beliefs? 

[RosyDaisy]

Just you wait, some lawmaker somewhere will draft a bill that will allow medical doctors to refuse to treat LGBTQ. Whether that bill would become law is a different story.

ETA: My EMT husband says it's against his religious beliefs to refuse ANYONE emergency treatment.

[Imagine20]

These laws are an attempt to bully and silence those who are different. That's it.  They've got nothing to do with "sincerely held beliefs" (that's just the phrase from case law they think will help these laws stick when challenged.) What these laws end up doing is keeping anyone affected from seeking services from the kinds of businesses where there might be issues. 

My cousin and his (male) fiance wanted to go in to get their marriage license today, and they're both afraid of encountering a Kim Davis type. They asked me to go, just in case. Then, as we made the plan, they got cold feet and decided not to. This should be an exciting time, not something that's fear and anxiety inducing. 

[Sundaymorning]

I honestly don't think that this will be a practical problem. Also, explaining why you let someone die cause they are LGBTQ will cause such public outrage, that I don't think any hospital or doctor wants to risk that. I mean, you'd have to be on PP's level of crazy if you would do such a thing as a medical professional, and if someone is lunatic like that, all bets are off anyways. I would actually feel much safer knowing that I wouldn't be treated by such an extreme homophobe.

Also, there is kinda a way to force medical professionals into treating LGBTQ people if you really have to: most hospitals receive some kind of public money. And since everyone has to pay taxes, the government itself shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Simply cut any public funding for any institutions who discriminate against anyone. That way, the most hardcore homophobes (who really are a danger to the life and health of LGBTQ people) would still stay out, but everyone else would give in. But like I said, I'm not a fan of forcing people because of several reasons. My personal experience is that very few medical professionals in the Western world are so incredibly homophobic that they would refuse to treat an LGBTQ person if it was some kind of emergency situation. Also, with most, you can talk calmly and matter-of-factly, and many will come around. People are usually more accommodating if they feel like they have a choice instead of being forced into something.

[EyeQueue]

12 hours ago, RosyDaisy said:

This is a slippery slope towards other types of of anti-LGBTQ legislation. What about medical doctors refusing to treat LGBTQ?

I wonder if Tennessee is aware that the NCAA is considering boycotting venues in states that have have anti-LGBTQ laws? The state could lose LOTS of revenue.

This has already been done, right? Wasn't there a recent case about a pediatrician not treating a child because her *parents* are gay?

If you take the Hippocratic Oath and are a medical physician, I don't give two turds what your sincerely held beliefs are. You are supposed to treat patients. Full stop.

I do agree, though, with commenters above about the therapy thing. It's not conducive for a homophobe to be treating gay people, but I don't think there should be a law about it because I think it's just one more of those laws that is paving the way for much more widespread laws allowing discrimination against people religious extremists don't like.

[Mercer]

Therapists are not currently forced to accept clients and never will be because as has been said, there has to be a rapport for therapy to be effective, and sometimes rapport isn't possible and the reasons can be incredibly subjective.

Aside from certain emergency crisis counseling positions (and frankly, someone who is not willing to accept anyone who walks through that door or calls that hotline is not suitable for those positions regardless of the reason,) the therapist has an incredible amount of discretion to refer the client off to a different provider.

As a person who works in the mental health field, I see no purpose for this bill aside from political grandstanding and trying to legitimize a particular form of prejudice.