The Right Not to Treat

The Washington Post on Monday has an article on the rise of numerous "right not to treat" bills.  These bills are a way to protect the people who refuse to provide birth control or be party to abortions, assisted suicides, etc.  Some of these new bills would protect physicians, nurses, etc. who refuse to provide their services on the grounds of personal belief.  Of course, trying to determine which personal beliefs should count and which should not is incredibly difficult, bordering perhaps on unconstitutional in some areas.   Note to the left: do not let the right wingers frame the debate over bills like this as a fight over "the right not to treat." Perhaps we should try to frame it as the "right to treatment."

It's a slippery slope, to use that most overplayed metaphor.  If the government is going to protect the health care provider who refuses to provide contraceptives on religios grounds, will it also protect the bigot who would refuse to treat gays on religious grounds?  What about the doctors who believe (pick your racial/cultural/ethnic/religious group) are not worthy of advanced medical treatment.  Could I as a doctor refuse to treat Republicans?  

Just wondering what people think about these bills.