With the passage of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), HB-5958, by the Michigan House of Representatives many are asking, “Will an EMT, because of their religious beliefs, be able to refuse treatment to a person that is gay?”
The Michigan bill, which the New Civil Rights Movement reported passed in a party-line vote on Saturday, would still need to be introduced and passed in the Michigan State Senate and then signed by the governor before becoming law.
EMS exists within the broader culture, as well as state and local politics. Many EMS providers have shared links to news articles about the Michigan RFRA on the EMS1 Facebook page and are asking for a discussion on the actual or potential impact this legislation may or may not have on patient care and transport.
Should religious beliefs trump an EMS provider’s obligation to care for patients that request our services?
Supporters of religious freedom laws, reports MSNBC, seek to protect “people from other laws that substantially burden their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Nineteen states have passed religious freedom acts into law. After acrimonious debate and voluminous comment by supports and opponents, a religious freedom act was vetoed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in February 2014.
Legislation like this generates speculation about how it might be applied or interpreted by pharmacists, physicians, or emergency medical providers. EMTs and paramedics in Michigan have a duty to act, which is an obligation to provide care when a request for service is made.
There are also potential conflicts with existing and enacted state law. For example, Michigan code, 333.2092 sec. 20921 states an ambulance operation has a duty to " Respond or ensure that a response is provided to each request for emergency assistance originating from within the bounds of its service area.”
As an EMS organization how do you communicate your duty to deliver emergency response when news like this is in the popular and political media conversation?
