NJ Grants Legal Immunity for Coved-19 Health Professionals. Why?

In NJ Grants Legal Immunity to COVID-19 Health Care Providers, LILO H. STAINTON reported on 4/15/20 for NJ Spotlight:

New Jersey’s hospitals and health care professionals responding to the coronavirus are now largely protected from legal liability if a patient is injured or dies while under their care during the current  pandemic crisis, according to a law Gov. Phil Murphy signed Tuesday.

The law — retroactive to March 9 — is designed to “ensure that there are no impediments to providing medical treatment related to the COVID-19 emergency,” according to a statement of intent attached to the bill, which easily passed both houses of the state Legislature during an emergency vote Monday.

The law provides legal immunity to a range of clinicians, including those practicing outside the normal scope of their license. It also protects hospitals — including temporary facilities — and health care systems for actions taken by their staff, representatives or volunteers in relation to COVID-19 cases. It also covers decisions made about the allocation of ventilators or other scarce resources during the current emergency.

Lawmakers amended the legislation Monday to make clear it does not protect medical providers treating patients “in their normal course of business,” like a cardiologist caring for a patient with a heart attack or an obstetrician delivering a baby. It also does not apply to outright criminal acts, fraud, gross negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct.

But multiple lawmakers, including some who did not participate in the vote, raised questions about the rushed process and lack of public input on the bill, the broad scope of the immunity and the impact it could have on some families, especially in communities of color that are suffering disproportionately in the pandemic.

But lawmakers from both parties questioned the sponsors about the need for what they said was an overly broad immunity bill. One fear is that it could jeopardize treatment for African Americans and other minority groups, some with higher rates of diagnosis and hospitalization in the epidemic. Others noted it left their families with limited legal recourse to challenge resource allocation and treatment decisions.

I posted these comments:

I’m no legal expert. And I realize that an infectious disease health emergency requires extraordinary measures. The key is measured. As an informed citizen, I don’t understand why the normal laws of liability should be selectively overridden. 

Is it because the existing liability laws are too slanted toward the patient, resulting in unjust, predatory lawsuits against hospitals and health care professionals? If so, then the law’s provisions should be permanent and apply across the board. If the existing liability laws are fair and just, then no exceptions should be made for coronavirus treatment providers. 

I suspect the former. 

For more details, see Updated: Murphy grants health workers legal immunity as the coronavirus swamps N.J. hospitals by  Susan K. Livio, NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

A slew of regulations have been waived to free up people to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. This indicates that they should never have been instituted in the first place. It also raises a constitutional issue, in my view. Special exemptions to general laws strikes me as unconstitutional, based on the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “the equal protection of the laws.” Why should some people be exempt, but not others?

Related Reading:

On Mandatory Vaccinations, Protect Everyone’s Right to Object, Not Just Religionists’ Rights

Vaccine Exemption Bill Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Fairness

Arizona Governor's "Religious Freedom" Veto Was the Right Move

Tara Smith on Religious Exemptions to ‘Generally Applicable Laws’

The BP Gulf Disaster: the Proximate vs. the Ultimate Cause

Merck- Villain or Victim?