Michigan Senate Bill SB0044

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/23
• Refer: 1/26/23
• Report Pass: 11/7/23
• Refer: 11/7/23
• Report Pass: 11/8/23
• Engrossed: 11/9/23
• Refer: 11/8/23

Caption

Health occupations: health professionals; invasive bodily examinations; prohibit under certain circumstances. Amends 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.1101 - 333.25211) by adding sec. 16279. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0045'23

Impact

The introduction of this bill is significant as it seeks to enhance patient rights and consent protocols within Michigan's healthcare system. By formally establishing the requirement for informed consent (except in emergencies or court orders), SB0044 attempts to create greater accountability among healthcare providers and protect patients from unwanted medical procedures. This change could lead to an adjustment in training practices for health profession students, emphasizing the importance of consent and ethical decision-making in their future practices.

Summary

Senate Bill 0044 aims to amend the Public Health Code of Michigan by adding section 16280, which establishes regulations regarding the performance of invasive bodily examinations on anesthetized or unconscious patients. The core provision of the bill prohibits healthcare professionals from conducting these examinations without obtaining informed consent from the patient or the patient's authorized representative, except in specific circumstances. These circumstances include situations where the examination is deemed necessary for diagnostic or treatment purposes, emergency situations, or when a court orders such an examination.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB0044 appears to be positive among healthcare advocates who prioritize patient autonomy and ethical standards in medical practice. Supporters commend the bill for its emphasis on protecting patients, asserting that it will foster greater trust in healthcare systems. However, it has also received criticism from some healthcare professionals who argue that the bill could complicate emergency medical procedures and increase delays in necessary care, potentially having adverse effects in critical situations.

Contention

One notable point of contention is the balance between patient rights and the practicalities of urgent medical care. Critics express concerns that the bill could hinder healthcare providers' ability to act swiftly in emergencies, which may lead to adverse outcomes for patients. Furthermore, ensuring informed consent in practice scenarios risks becoming complex, especially involving students in health profession training programs. This aspect raises questions about the adequacy of training and the implications for patient care standards when students are involved in invasive procedures.