Michigan Senate Bill SB0070

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/16/23
• Refer: 2/16/23
• Report Pass: 4/25/23
• Refer: 4/25/23
• Report Pass: 5/3/23
• Engrossed: 5/4/23
• Refer: 5/4/23
• Report Pass: 6/8/23
• Enrolled: 6/27/23
• Chaptered: 7/18/23
• Passed: 7/18/23

Caption

Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for the crime of performing certain medical treatments on a minor without consent and another individual present and intentionally omitting certain services in a medical record; enact. Amends sec. 13n, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.13n). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0069'23, SB 0071'23

Impact

The bill has implications for existing laws concerning the rights of minors in medical settings and could significantly reform how medical professionals are held accountable for their decisions and actions when treating minors. The amendments to the sentencing guidelines are intended to deter non-compliant behaviors by imposing stricter penalties on offenders, which is expected to lead to higher standards of care in medical practices involving minors. Additionally, the bill aligns with a broader initiative to tighten regulations in medical procedures, particularly in sensitive cases involving children's healthcare.

Summary

Senate Bill 0070 aims to amend provisions of the 1927 Public Act 175 concerning criminal procedure, particularly about sentencing guidelines related to specific criminal offenses associated with medical treatments performed on minors without consent. The bill primarily focuses on enhancing penalties for health professionals who provide certain medical treatments to minors without the presence of another individual, as well as those who intentionally omit services in medical records. By doing so, it seeks to establish clearer accountability for medical practitioners and to protect the welfare of minors within the healthcare system.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding SB 0070 appears to be supportive, particularly among legislators focused on increasing protections for vulnerable populations like minors. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary measure to ensure that minors receive the requisite medical oversight and that ethical standards are upheld in medical treatment settings. However, concerns have been raised about the potential for overreach and over-penalization of medical professionals, which could arise if the guidelines are perceived as too stringent or if they inadvertently penalize necessary medical interventions.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions around the balance between necessary medical discretion and the enforcement of stringent laws that may inhibit healthcare providers' judgments. The concerns hinge on whether the bill might inadvertently create hesitancy among practitioners in urgent or nuanced medical situations involving minors, potentially impacting the quality and immediacy of care provided. Moreover, some dissenting voices question the practicality of enforcing these guidelines and wonder if they may disproportionately impact smaller medical practices or health professionals in rural areas.