Discuss the new "conscience" rule

The "conscience" rule, which the outgoing Bush administration plans to announce, could set the stage for an abortion controversy in the early months of Barack Obama's administration. The rule will permit healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

Whereas an existing federal law has long dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions, the "conscience" rule covers more employees, who can refuse to provide information to patients who might want an abortion.

Share your thoughts on the new rule here.

Comments

[P H D]

With so many conscienceless, immoral, no-holds-barred, anything-goes medical practitioners available out there in the community, patients are able to find one who is willing to perform most any procedure (partial-birth abortion comes immediately to mind). A truly scrupulous person in the medical field should not be forced to participate in any procedure he/she finds morally objectionable. We allow for conscientious objectors to avoid military service because of their scruples, we should do the same for our medical services personnel.

[A. 'Enthal]

Anyone can refuse to do anything at any time. A restaurant can refuse to have pork on its menu. A cab driver can refuse to go to a low income area. And if an individual doesn't want to do abortions (or rhinoplasty) that really is between him/her and their employer. I see no law needed to effect those rights.
If an institution uses a bogus claim of personal rights to block the availability of any legal service or procedure, particularly if that institution is the only hospital for 70 miles, then there need to be laws in opposition to this "conscience" rule. But there is almost always somebody who will do what somebody else wouldn't. When abortions were entirely illegal, they still went on in back alleys. This back door attempt to inflict a narrow minorities' pseudo-morality on all of society will not work as long as there is money to be made.

[kfizzle]

I think this is great. It is unjust for this country to be so adament about personal freedoms and yet deny medical professionals those same freedoms. Additionally, it is a risky business to for the law to MAKE people do something they are morally opposed to, especially with regard to something SO controversial. I am appalled that it is even within some people's scope of reason to force doctors and other medical professionals to do something they can not do in good conscience and do not want to do.

[David Johnson]

The difference between the examples above (restaurants, soldiers) is that doing these procedures is *part* of being a doctor. And if you can't do these procedures, then you're not a doctor. Period. It's your *job*.

Look, I work at a library. If I can't shelve a book "because it's against my conscious to do so" (say, it's a book on teaching religion to children...which to my mind is child abuse) then - hey - soon I *don't* work at a library...because I can't do the job. It should be the same with doctors.

And the "they can always go somewhere else" doesn't cut it, what with the ever decreasing number of doctors out there, and the ever decreasing number of places people can go to see one. "Go somewhere else" is not an option if you're in a small town and the next doctor is often fifty, sixty, a hundred miles away.

And if the doctors

[Consciencious Absurdist]

Well, I guess if healthcare workers are allowed to refuse to perform certain procedures under a "conscience clause" it should be extended to every worker in the United States.
Say, if I work at McDonald's and find flipping burgers objectionable as they subject animals to unnecessary cruelty, I can refuse to serve them to my customers without risking getting fired. Or if, as a payroll accountant, I object to withhold Social Security from the paychecks I'm proceeding on account of it conflicting with my Libertarian views, I can do so and screw up workers pensions while keeping my conscience intact.
Store employees should be allowed as well to refuse selling cigarettes, alcohol or even junk food as they object to the harm they do to human health.
As a gas station owner I could refuse to sell gas to Hummers as they conflict with my views on global warming, but I'm OK to service Prius owners. Oh, why did I become a gas station owner in the first place? Well, one has to make a living, right?
Bottom line is if you object to abortion, artificial insemination or prescribing the pill, then don't become a gynecologist, don't become a nurse and don't become a pharmacist. I object to firearms, I chose not to join the police or the army. There are a gazillions jobs on the planet that do conflict with their practitioners' consciences, but they still have to do it,no matter what. I do not see why medical workers should be exempt from performing tasks they see as objectionable when the rest of the populace cannot.

[Vic Ferra!]

Viva Bush! He is the man! Awesome!

[Vic Ferra!]

It's funny how the left make movies like the Matrix and The Invasion of the Body Snatcher, yet they are too blind to see that they are the ones caught in the Matrix and have been infected by the "Soul Snatchers." They cannot see how upside down the world has become. Contraception, Abortion, Euthansia, Homosexuality and so on are now the norm. God, Country, and life are now the outcast and condemned every where. Open your eyes my friends and see the reality of the world around. You have bee tricked, infected, and brainwashed. Wake up people!!!

[Chris]

The rule is fine by me, as long as they also create a rule that forces healthcare workers to disclose the details of any medical malpractice claims that have been brought against them.

[Carter]

The biggest consequence of this policy will be to effectively deny abortions to poor rural women who already have to drive 300 miles to a clinic, just to find out the that one doctor on hand "conscientiously objects" to the procedure.

Meanwhile, more affluent urban women have access to several clinics in their town/city/metropolis and can try elsewhere if rebuffed at the first place.

Another Bush policy leads to de facto class warfare.

I shouldn't be surprised any more.

[Amy, RN]

Gosh, as a health care provider in an Emergency Department, would I be covered under this? I find it very objectionable and it is against my moral code and conscious to keep giving prescriptions of pain medications to known drug seekers. It is also against my social conscious to allow people to abuse Emergency Departments in lieu of getting a/or going to their primary care physician. This is one of those things that keep driving up the cost of our healthcare, as most of these folks are un-insured or under-insured. I was always under the impression that we had a responsibility as medical professionals to do what was right for the patient. I don't think it is appropriate to impose my values on some one else when I am acting in a professional capacity, especially if that person is going through a stressful time. That would be my job if I was a rabbi, reverend, or some other type of spiritual/moral leader.

[J. Richards]

OK, I see how it works now: all licensed professionals should be required to perform any service of which they are capable, upon demand by a paying customer. I'll remember that next time I'm sued for refusing to perform an abortion; I'll run down to my local chapter of Planned Parenthood or perhaps the ACLU and demand that one of their lawyers defend me. That's how it works, right? That's how you envision it should work - - - correct?

[allaire]

Religion is interfering and forcing one set of extreme morals on everyone. This rule undermines medicine and trust, and sets dangerous and reckless precedence. It provides a “pass card” for insubordination at every level. While birth issues are highlighted, “any procedure they find morally objectionable,” covers everything. The moral standard for every person and religion is different. Considering all people including Atheists and Agnostics a “common” standard is set. This new rule is chaos and undermines a structure that is not broken while providing for discrimination and an increase in legal actions. It’s bad policy and immoral.

[Maya]

The original law was narrow if scope for a reason. The reason is that a person's life could be in jeopardy due to certain objections. There are also very emergent situations that could lead to a person's death. The woman in the article with the embolism could have died if the procedure wasn't done immediately. If it would have dislodged, death would have been likely. Also, as a nurse, I have seen teens with periods so bad that they are anemic and a hysterectomy is imminent due to the fact that their family wouldn't here of trying hormone therapy (birth control) to control the bleeding. Or they have been in pain every month and can't leave their house. It is not until they get to us at the hospital that we tell them after giving a transfusion that their daughter could loose their ability to reproduce due to their refusal. Unfortunately some still become sterile because their family did not "get it" in time. I agree with a previous poster, don't work in healthcare (definitely not the emergency room) if you object to caring for your patients especially when it will cause harm. And to deny a RAPE victim the morning after pill is akin to raping her again and I am sure that the pharmacist was told why she needed it. That is beyond cruel. And to address another comment, people go to the emergency room because they are the last line of defense and we have 40 million plus people without heatlhcare because they don't get it at work and or because they just can't afford it.

[M. Kurzweil]

Conscience is the irrational, emotional response to a belief. The suggestion that conscience or conscientiousness has any authority or moral integrity beyond a prejudice is ludicrous.
"If my conscience told me" is a common phrase accepted without question, even when it states clearly that "My mind is under the control beliefs that I accept as reality".
Murder, genocide, slavery and much of humanities' history can be explained by the brain function of belief that associates hallucinations and desires with reality when beliefs are useful only when they relieve the cognate brain of learned and repetitious behavior.
Conscience is the rational mind on cruise control.

[Kate N]

What about the rights of patients? What about a rural woman who is forced to drive a long distance to get her birth control pills? What about a woman who accidentally goes to a "Catholic" hospital after a rape or has to have an emergency C-Section and asks to have her tubes tied? These aren't hypothetical issues - they have happened to me and other women I have known.

While there may be gray areas for physicians and nurses, there should be none for pharmacists. If you can't dispense prescribed birth control pills, DON'T BECOME A PHARMACIST.

[James Talbot]

Perhaps we need more right-wing christian hospitals. In that way, bible thumping medical practioners could have a place to pursue their missionary work while treating patients.

[simone]

This rule is a recipe for chaos. With no further definition, each person, without respect to their education, level of understanding of medical procedures, etc. could unilaterally refuse to provide services at their discretion. Besides introducing feelings and subjective thought to the science of medicine, which is a huge shift from basic standards of practice, it also would be a managerial nightmare. Oversight of this rule would be a convoluted and confusing exercise.

Clearly, this is aimed at providing more support for persons on one side of the abortion debate, however it seems to me this should not be carried out in waiting rooms and emergency rooms, when the intensity of emotions and adrenaline is at a peak, and clear, rational thinking is critical.

[Godot]

Conceivably, under the law the way it is written, someone could refuse to treat anyone not of the same religion or who is not orthodox enough - for it would not be "moral" to treat a heathen/pagan/sinner/etc. For shame! For doctors at least, rule one of the Hippocratic Oath has always been, "First, do no harm." Another important ethical rule has been informed consent. For agencies to not mention all of the client's options is unethical. It seems that these medical personnel forget 1) who is the patient, 2) in most states it is a privilege (requires a license) to practice medicine or nursing, 3) that if they don't want to provide those services, they should not work at that kind of facility, in that specialty, in that field. And they say fundamentalism exists only in other countries....

[h]

Where does something like that stop? Can a physician refuse to treat a gay person seriously injured in a car accident because of a moral disapproval of homosexuality? Can a physician refuse treatment of a pregnant woman because the woman is unmarried?

Yet another idiotic decision by the team who brought you the Iraq War.

[Dick Diamond]

What would happen if a person who was to give a blood transfusion to a person who needed it or would die, refused to do so? Since religion is NOT a criteria for employment, this could prove dangerous.
What ever happened to the rule , "Do no harm?" Or is that just for doctors, not other medical providers?

[muD]

1. Medicine is not an iPod or a meal. A doctor, or other health care provider, in private practice can decide what non-emergency procedures to perform and not perform. Emergency procedures, or time sensitive ones as in the case of the morning after pill are not up for debate. You perform them or face criminal and civil penalties. If you can't do your job get another job.

2. In NYC or LA you can always find another pharmacy or another hospital. In the great plains you are lucky if there is a single pharmacy in the county. A minor hospital can be sixty miles away and a major facility is a day's drive. As a health care provider your responsibilities are even greater in a rural area.

This rule is not liberal versus conservative politics. It is an establishment of religion pure and simple.

[MsCasey]

If it isn't Mormons spending tens of millions of dollars to deny the right of all people in California to marry, it's the rampant, individual religionists who insist on foisting their most primitive dogma on the rest of us. Religion must be a completely private matter and nobody's business but the devotee's.

Government, medical care, public education and the law must operate on empirical facts, not superstition. Any professional, licensed to serve the public, should do so or be defrocked. Perhaps these delusional nurses would make good veterinarians' assistants!

[Don]

So, under this new rule, "r medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers [can] refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable." Fascinating. What? You're a Catholic? My evangelical Protestant religion says it's" morally objectionable" for me to help you so I'll just let you die. What? You're Arabic? I'm a good conservative American and find it "morally objectionable" to help any Arabs. I'll just let you die. What? You're Latino? I find it "morally objectionable" to help anyone who I think is part of the invasion of America that goes across our border, so I'll just let you die. What? You're a woman of color married to an Angelo man? I find your relationships "morally objectionable," so I'll just deny you care and let you die.

I know this hideous, reprehensible rule might be put into place, but the only truly American and Christian thing to do is to let this rule die--abort it before it begins.

[dick bohanon]

if you have a right to refuse something due to your moral standings
dont i?
i dont care for the war on drugs ,so cant i refuse to fund or uphold it.
i dont care for realigion so why should i have to imposed on by your
realigious limitations.(gay marriage)
i dont care for american cars so why should i have to bail them out.
i am morally repulsed by people who have kids that cant take care of them
can i tell them not to have kids or be forced to support them through my taxes?
should i be forced to pay for abstinence-only training when i have a moral
problem with hiding facts from our youth.
the word is reciprocity.
my morals are not trumped by yours just because you cloak them in realigion

[Karen]

Just another lame idea from the lamest President ever. He really wants to go out with a bang. I guess the war wasn't enough? Hmm? The "conscience" rule, where a medical practitioner can refuse ANY service they deem morally objectionable. So a Jehovah’s witness can refuse a blood transfusion to a dying patient, a Catholic can refuse abortion to a rape victim, a person with their "own" religion can pretty much make anything up, deny service and say it goes against THEIR own personal moral beliefs. What a mess. You can't have religion in school, even the mention of God to children is grounds for dismissal... GOD FORBID children know of religion at school. However, let's allow people, who in many cases hold LIVES in their hands make decisions based on their religious and moral beliefs. Yeah, thanks again President Bush.