联邦政府命令医生和卫生保健提供者为有限的英语熟练患者提供免费的语言翻译服务:Colwell诉美国卫生和人类服务部

Sharon L. Browne
{"title":"联邦政府命令医生和卫生保健提供者为有限的英语熟练患者提供免费的语言翻译服务:Colwell诉美国卫生和人类服务部","authors":"Sharon L. Browne","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.782364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For 2400 years society has been confident that physicians will use their professional judgment in treating their patients. Recently the federal government has intruded into the patient-physician relationship by adopting a requirement that physicians provide free oral and written translation services to limited English proficient patients, without reimbursement, or face possible prosecution for national origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Neither language nor limited English proficiency status are protected classifications. This unprecedented expansion of Title VI is being challenged in Colwell v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. This paper argues that the federal government's intrusion into the patient-physician relationship is invalid. First, although the policy is a legislative rule creating new obligations for physicians, the government gave no prior notice of the policy change in violation of the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Second, the rule is ulta vires because nothing in Title VI supports equating language with national origin. Third, the rule is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First Amendment.","PeriodicalId":73765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care law & policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feds Order Physicians and Health Care Providers to Provide Free Language Translation Services to Limited English Proficient Patients: Colwell V. United States Department of Health and Human Services\",\"authors\":\"Sharon L. Browne\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.782364\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For 2400 years society has been confident that physicians will use their professional judgment in treating their patients. Recently the federal government has intruded into the patient-physician relationship by adopting a requirement that physicians provide free oral and written translation services to limited English proficient patients, without reimbursement, or face possible prosecution for national origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Neither language nor limited English proficiency status are protected classifications. This unprecedented expansion of Title VI is being challenged in Colwell v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. This paper argues that the federal government's intrusion into the patient-physician relationship is invalid. First, although the policy is a legislative rule creating new obligations for physicians, the government gave no prior notice of the policy change in violation of the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Second, the rule is ulta vires because nothing in Title VI supports equating language with national origin. Third, the rule is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First Amendment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.782364\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care law & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.782364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2400年来,社会一直相信医生在治疗病人时会运用他们的专业判断。最近,根据1964年《民权法案》第六章的规定,联邦政府介入了医患关系,要求医生为英语水平有限的病人提供免费的口头和书面翻译服务,而且没有赔偿,否则可能因国籍歧视而受到起诉。第六章禁止基于种族、肤色或国籍的歧视。语言或有限英语水平都不属于受保护的分类。在Colwell诉美国卫生与公众服务部一案中,第六章这种前所未有的扩张受到了挑战。本文认为联邦政府对医患关系的干预是无效的。首先,虽然该政策是一项立法规则,为医生创造了新的义务,但政府没有事先通知政策变化,这违反了《行政程序法》的通知和评论规则制定要求。其次,该规则是绝对有效的,因为第六章中没有任何内容支持将语言与国籍等同起来。第三,该规定过于宽泛,含糊不清,违反了宪法第一修正案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feds Order Physicians and Health Care Providers to Provide Free Language Translation Services to Limited English Proficient Patients: Colwell V. United States Department of Health and Human Services
For 2400 years society has been confident that physicians will use their professional judgment in treating their patients. Recently the federal government has intruded into the patient-physician relationship by adopting a requirement that physicians provide free oral and written translation services to limited English proficient patients, without reimbursement, or face possible prosecution for national origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Neither language nor limited English proficiency status are protected classifications. This unprecedented expansion of Title VI is being challenged in Colwell v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. This paper argues that the federal government's intrusion into the patient-physician relationship is invalid. First, although the policy is a legislative rule creating new obligations for physicians, the government gave no prior notice of the policy change in violation of the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Second, the rule is ulta vires because nothing in Title VI supports equating language with national origin. Third, the rule is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First Amendment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信