Bush Administration's "Right of Conscience" Rule Pits Morals Against Women's Health
Medical ethics, the responsibilities of healthcare workers, reproductive rights and women's health are on the line as a broad new "right of conscience" rule is being introduced that would enable any healthcare worker - from doctors down to non-medical personnel - to refuse to participate in any procedure they regard as morally objectionable.
The US Department of Health and Human Services has been pushing for this in recent months, and HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt intends to issue this final regulation before December 20, causing difficulties for an Obama administration more supportive of reproductive rights.
The Los Angeles Times explains why this new ruling would be disastrous for women's healthcare and why prominent medical associations oppose this action:
The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.The above excerpt is only the tip of the iceberg. I urge you to read the entire LA Times article to fully understand what this ruling will mean, and the ways in which concerned women's health advocates (such as Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray) intend to oppose it.It also seeks to cover more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to "an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments," the draft rule said....
The American Medical Assn. and the American Hospital Assn. in October urged HHS to drop the regulation....
Last year, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said a "patient's well-being must be paramount" when a conflict arises over a medical professional's beliefs.
In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” ACOG cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital....
[ACOG] said physicians have a "duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request."...
The HHS rule says that law should be enforced "broadly" to cover any "activity related in any way to providing medicine, healthcare or any other service related to health or welfare."
Judith Waxman, a lawyer for the National Women's Law Center, said..."This goes way beyond abortion"....It could reach disputes over contraception, sperm donations and end-of-life care.
"This kind of rule could wreak havoc in a hospital if any employee can declare they are not willing to do certain parts of their job," she said.
Related article: When 'Contraception' is Mislabeled 'Abortion' - Ruling Puts Women At Risk
Comments
If a Medical Doctor prescribes Estrogen to woman for medical purposes, other than contraception, and the pharmacy refuses to fill the prescription, then the patient becomes ill, or dies, is the pharmacy liable?
Not only does this rule pit morals against public health, it’s a clear case of trying to have things both ways. Concurrent with pushing this rule through the Bush administration is trying to bypass prohibitions on public funding for those who discriminate based on religious preferences. So, if they have their way, religious people can keep you from getting a job based on your beliefs, but you can’t be prevented from refusing to do a secular job based on your beliefs. The religious group can say “choose another job”, but the secular profession (such as medicine) can’t, even if public health depends upon it. What they’re saying is, “you can believe whatever you want, and act on those beliefs, as long as you agree with our fundamentalist Christian beliefs.”
The Bush administration announced its “conscience protection” rule for the health care industry yesterday, giving everyone including doctors, hospitals, receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.
Now heres the clincher……………………
The right-to-refuse rule includes abortion, but Leavitt’s office said it extends to other aspects of health care where moral concerns could arise, including birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide.
Now lets say a doctor who believes in assisted suicide lets it be known in some subtle way. What if old uncle fred knows this and insists on being taken to this doctor knowing that the doctor will not try very hard to keep him alive because it goes against his conscience? Pretty soon all the elderly who want to die will be going to this doctor who can defend his actions on moral grounds.
Now lets say that there is a doctor who is not crazy about the police. A wounded officer is rushed to the hospital and the doctor refuses treatment on moral grounds.
Lets say that there is a Vietnamese or Iraqi doctor on the night shift at a major hospital, and some decorated veteran who has had his picture in the paper arrive for an emergency procedure with only minutes to live. The doctor refuses treatment on moral grounds.
Lets say that anyone who has had their picture in the paper or the court report is rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment with only minutes to live. The doctor in attendance has seen their picture in the paper or read the court report and refuses treatment on moral grounds.
Lets say a doctor is not very good, bottom of the class, drunk, whatever , and the patient dies. Can the doctor claim that their behaviour was actually the result of a moral decision so as to avoid a malpractice suit?
LETS THINK ABOUT THIS…………………