An unconscionable conscience rule
A new rule may limit some women
Doctors take an oath to put their patients’ interests first. A new Bush administration rule will change that.
The so-called “conscience rule” is one of a host of last-minute regulatory changes being made in the waning hours of President George W. Bush’s tenure in office.
The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from such programs as Medicare and Medicaid from taking any sort of disciplinary action against doctors, nurses or pharmacists who refuse to perform certain duties because of their convictions.
Under the rule, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives or for medications associated with medical abortion. A doctor can refuse to tell a pregnant patient about the availability of abortion even if the patient asks about it and even if a continued pregnancy threatens the patient’s life.
On the other side of the equation, the rights of some patients will be sacrificed. Some poor women, especially those who live in rural areas with limited access to care, will be unable to get complete information or get some prescriptions filled because of the new rule.
In some cases, a physician’s medical decisions could, in essence, be overridden by a pharmacy technician invoking the new rule and refusing to provide prescribed drugs.
Offering appropriate abortion counseling or contraceptives is part of the standard of care for a wide range of health conditions, including heart disease, diabetes and epilepsy. The new rule would allow some doctors to choose a lesser standard.
That’s dangerous and unnecessary. There already exists a large body of case law that protects the religious rights of medical practitioners. This ill-considered new rule goes beyond that. It could make it harder for hospitals to discipline incompetent doctors by transforming disciplinary hearings from investigations of medical competence into arguments about religious persecution.
Michael O. Leavitt, the Bush administration secretary for Health and Human Services, lauded the rule last week. “Doctors and other health care professionals shouldn’t be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” he said.
No such conflict should exist. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists choose professions that put patients’ rights first. If they foresee that priority becoming problematic for them, they should choose another profession.
President-elect Barack Obama’s administration can and should rescind the rule, even though the process will take time. Decisions about care are best made by a patient and a health care provider who places that patient’s best medical interests above any other issue.
As a retired nurse, with over 50 years in the field, I thank the President for this consideration. No health professional should be forced to participate in abortions, that is the real complaint. Did it ever dawn on you liberal to ask why so FEW physicians or nurses participate in abortions? Why the procedure is not taught in medical school or teaching hospitals? Because it is too often used as a form of birth control. Let those ladies use contraceptives!!!!
The vote from the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade was 7-2. 5 of the 7 concurring were judges appointed by Republican presidents. The 2 dissenters were one appointed by Reagan (Rehnquist) and one appointed by Kennedy (White). “Liberals” had very little to do with the outcome as you can see.
What stunning hypocrisy. Would you consider it unconscionable if the federal government required you to publish the works of conservative columnists? Yet when they seek to respect the conscience of those in other professions, in matters far more important than mere words, that you consider unconscionable.
In reality, this will not be any sort of imposition on a patient. Even Potosi, an impoverish rural town of just 2,700 souls, has three pharmacies. Under this new rule, you can be sure at least one of them will continue to carry whatever pill may be prescribed. And should it be something obscure, there are dozens more pharmacies within a short drive from Potosi.
Despite this, you would require as a condition of being able to fill Medicare and Medicaid prescriptions, that pharmacists dispense drugs which they personally believe to be homicidal tonics. It is that view, and not this rule, which is unconscionable. It is all the more offensive coming from the pen of one who is free to express her own conscience at all times, and who has made a profession of so doing.
Save your breath. Obama has already said he is going to sign ASAP the Freedom of Choice Act which will negate anything done during the Bush Adm.
I am sure that will make all of you happy.
But the bigger picture here is that this is just more anti-Christian hate from the left which we are seeing come to a head with the Warren invitation.
I also have to correct myself from a previous post. David Schuster of MSNBC last night had the other invited preacher on to interview. He is also against gay marriage and I said he was for it.
Forget about the Christians, just you all wait until a Muslim pharmacist or a Muslim doctor is forced to do something against his/her religion and this topic too will come to a head as they also voted for Obama in large numbers.
Can’t wait!
Is the medical profession the only one that the Post Disgrace “editorial staff” thinks should be excluded from religious objection? Does the Disgraceful “editorial staff” think muslims should be forced to touch pork products if their job is in sales? What about muslim cab drivers who refused to drive if the customer had alcohol?
Interestingly, men and women can claim to be conscientious objectors in the military, but civilians can’t be conscientious objectors? Aren’t we supposed to be a nation of freedom? This is tyranny. It appears the Post-Dispatch is increasingly becoming more pro-death
Once again, the StLToday editorial board amazes me in their strictly partisan viewpoint. The board acts as if this is a new development. Healthcare professionals have ALWAYS had the right to withdraw from procedures which conflict with their moral/religious convictions. This merely makes it easier for these professionals to do so.
I thinks it’s disgusting these so called “journalists” have their heads so far up their progressive a**** that they would expect a devoutly christian doctor to perform an abortion (interestingly enough, the hippocratic oath contains a provision which prohibits abortions). The point which SHOULD be remembered is the doctor-patient relationship is not merely a one-way street. There are mutual interests which should be considered. A doctor should not be expected to engage in any practice which (s)he may consider morally or theologically unacceptable.
Further, I would like to point out that journalists enjoy unfettered freedom in annoying everyday people through the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press. What about the establishment and free exercise clauses in the 1st Amendment? Do you really not think it is the government’s role to protect doctor’s freedom to exercise their religion? If state-run hospitals forced doctors to perform practices adverse to their religion, they could be facing a lawsuit for the violation of civil rights. Your response is this: get another job.
Silly journalists, educate yourselves. Pathetic, ignorant drivel.
One question:
Does the clinic, hospital, pharmacy also have the right to ask on its’ job application form if the nurse, doctor, physician assistant, pharmacist, pharmacist assistant and any other “medical personnel” hold this particular scruple, and choose only to hire those who answer “No”?
In other words, if a Catholic hospital can decide only to hire those who subscribe to catholic doctrine, then can a City or County Hospital hire only those who are open to all procedures?
It would strike me that if such a “test” was put into the hiring practices ther would be a hue and cry about job discrimination.
Of course all pharmacies and hospitals are free to do what they want, however, they should also post at their entrances a list of procedures/drugs/medicines that they will not provide because of their “moral” stance — that way the health conscious consumer is free to make their own choices. Now can yuou imagine the advertising from those facilities that are open to all procedures, etc — “We provide health care to all 24/7″.
There are several other areas this question/policy leaves unresolved:
1. If a dietician is a devout Jew/Muslim/Hindu,can they refuse to design or serve meals that include “pork” (and beef if Hindu) to patients?
2. Ala the Nancy Cruzan case, can a medical employee over-ride a family’s request solely because that medical employee disagrees with the family?
3. In the case of Seventh Adventists and others, does this mean a medical employee who belongs to this religion, even though they are working in a “secular” facility, can refuse to perform IV-tranfusions?
There are too many unresolved questions here and such “shot-gun” rules will ultimately cause more harm than good. Medical personnel should be able to make their moral choice, but they cannot be allowed to force them on anyone else — that is the essence of freedom.