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.

[AChen]

I think this proposed law has far-reaching implications that go beyond just the controversial issues of abortion, birth control, and even religious rights. The discussion so far has seemed to touch upon these key points, so I won't really elaborate much there. The issue I want to bring up has been raised by some people, though implicitly.

If this law passes and doctors are allowed to deny their services based on religious or moral beliefs, where do you draw the line so as to limit this new power?

I understand that some doctors would not like to perform abortions, or do not believe that birth control is morally right. This law would allow doctors to refuse to perform these services. However, what else would the doctors be allowed to refuse?

There are strong public policies favoring healthcare for everyone and disfavoring discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, etc. You could say that it stems from the 14th Amendment, into the Civil Rights Act, and into the initiatives today to have every child in America signed up for health insurance.

This proposed law flies in the face of those public policies. Through this law, the doctors will have power to discriminate arbitrarily, under the guise of "moral and religious views." And this is the point that some bloggers have brought up.

What stops a doctor from discriminating against a gay patient? What stops a doctor from refusing treatment to a patient who he deems is not orthodox enough? Can a doctor refuse treatment of an Iraq War veteran because the doctor believes the war to be morally bankrupt?

These are all possibilities that can be introduced with the passage of this proposed law. This law, in its current manifestation, does not liberate doctors, as many would think. It grants doctors the power to deny anyone medical service, a power that likens doctors to gods.

[Kevin]

Can't Obama simply nullify the rule by executive order? After all, the precedent of using executive orders to ignore inconvenient laws, rules and procedures (including that incredibly pesky Constitution-thingy) has been recently set by the current administration.

[DAVID COX]

As a 100% disabled veteran, I did the job I signed up to do- kill people of all ages .The action I was in remained unblessed and illegal, and the liberated receipients asked me to go home, but I couldn't- my lying government said it was necessary to protect america's interests in the area;no longer was this about them, but it quickly evolved into our interests only. Thousands are dead, millions displaced and homeless, where are all of you religious freaks now? Save a fetus so it can grow up into a fine adult killer. May you all be cursed with eternal damnation, may you never know peace, and stop calling yourselves saviors of humanity, and christians. As a soldier I swore to protect this nation from all enemies without and within. Those who wish to promote discrimination and deny justice for all, are traitors. When are we really going to be represented,when are we going to get rid of all of these lobbiests, when are we going to have seperation of church and state? I believe in abortion rights, I believe in the death penalty, I believe in defending american soil, I believe you better keep your hypocritical body off of my property.

[richard schumacher]

Conscience rules make a hash of health care. What next, will Seventh-Day Adventist medical workers demand the right to refuse to prescribe or administer blood transfusions and not refer patients?

[Stan Smith]

This is just more time of President Bush and his right wing minority trying to make the rest of us live by their rules. The majority of the American public wants access to both birth control and abortion services. If our presidenmt and his supporters do not believe in them, no one is forcing them to use them.

[Diane, Chicago, IL]

What if I'm a doctor who believes AIDS is sent by God to punish homosexuals and drug users for their "immoral choices"? Do I get to refuse them treatment? If I have admitting privileges at the only hospital for miles around, can I refuse them a bed there even if they need hospital treatment or else they'll die? What about the moral obligation to save a life?

[Anne M.]

Bush and his sneaky back-door religious counterparts are steamrolling the American people with this dirty trick. This is a last parting shot against a woman's right to health care services she is paying for and are covered on her plan. If health care workers get to object to any services related to doing their jobs in the field of reproductive health, including prevention, then they should not have access to public funds of any kind. They should be working in private institutions. I can't just arbitrarily not do part of my job. I'll get fired. I think these people, if their jobs are publicly funded, should get fired. Patients have rights to legal services. If the people refuse to do their jobs, they must go. Fired.

[Dave Noble]

Can a healthcare worker who is a Jehovah's Witness refuse to participate in a transfusion? Can a pharmacist who is a Scientologist refuse to fill a prescription for an anti-depressant?

[Ken]

Gotta' love pro-abortion liberals -- they're "pro-choice" unless someone's choice is to let a baby live.

[Wad Spicer]

Legislated malpractice! Great idea: should keep the lawyers busy for decades.

[Nick]

So there are those people out there would think it would be alright to refuse assistance to let's say a pro-life individual whom needs a life saving transplant.

Because of course it is not natural for people to live beyond what they are scheduled to live.

Remember you must allow GOD to control your life and you should just go back to the stone ages and attempt to live.

[Ryan]

The "conscience rule" is not about patients forcing morals on doctors, it's about doctors forcing morals on patients. It's a doctor's job to perform an abortion or perscribe birth-control if it is necessary or if it is the choice of his/her patient as much as it is the doctor's job to birth a child or give a mother painkillers if necessary or if it it is the choice of his/her patient.

[Nancy]

Diane asks "what about the moral obligation to save a life ?" That's exactly what the health professional opposed to abortion is agreeing with !

Something else: if I wanted an aborition, I don't think I' d want it done by someone who is honestly and completely morally opposed and yet forced to do it. Do you want someone performing surgery on you under emotional duress ?
Theocracy ? There are agnositics and atheists who are pro-life strictly on what they see as scientific/ethical reasons. The physiological facts of the development of the fetus for one.

[Nancy]

so we'll lose even more good obstetricians who will leave the specialty so as not to be forced to commit what they see as murder (and the violation of the Hippocratic oath). We're already losing many because of the out of control trial lawyers. I could never practice obstetrics and use all my skills to save a 6 month fetus on one day then kill another one at another time because of the mother's "choice". The baby's humanity and value cannot be changed according to what another person thinks of that particular being. This goes way beyond any particular religion.

[Queen of the Pirates]

I'm 47 years old and not in any sort of relationship. I developed some female problems - the doctors at one hospital refused to do anything about it (despite the horrible pain I was in) because they "wanted to preserve my fertility" If I'm 47 it's not SAFE for me to get pregnant ANYWAY! Why the HELL do they want to preserve something I've NEVER used and likely NEVER WILL USE? I found out later it's one of those blasted "christian" hospitals where the patient's issues don't matter because they considered it a "potential" abortion!

[Elisa]

The Conscience Rule is gender discrimination. It is just that simple. Everytime there is a new rule to control the right of a woman to control outcomes with her own body, it is gender discrimination.

[C. Soper]

I understand that those in power who proposed this rule believe they are working in the public's best interest. It pains me to see that once again the actions of our government attest to the veracity of Paul Rusesabagina's words, "There is no greater gift to an insecure leader that quite matches a vague enemy who can be used to whip up fear and hatred among the population."

If this new rule allows the refusal of services, does it also allow the performance of procedures currently restriced under U.S. law? I mean to say, if a pharmacist can refuse to stock or dispense the morning after pill, can said pharmacist also offer comfrey tea as an alternative to regulated headache remedies? Can a doctor who objects to abortion on moral grounds also offer female genital mutilation because he finds it morally objectionalble to discriminate against another individual's cultural practices?

Unfortunately, though we may see a greater restriction on women's right to control their own reproduction, what we will not see is any healthcare provider refusing to perform or assist in liposuction on the grounds that it is morally objectionable for an overweight person to use surgery to remedy their weight/ size issues. We won't see that happening because liposuction is a lucrative practice.

[Rick]

Say that I'm hiring staff for my hospital. On one hand, I cannot discriminate based upon race, religion or sex. On the other hand, if the staff could refuse to do certain treatments or tasks based upon their religious beliefs, but I want to offer those treatments in my hospital, then I should have the right to question candidates about their religious beliefs and make hiring decisions based (in part) on those beliefs.

Furthermore, if I happen to have someone on staff that refuses to do certain treatments (which my hospital wants to continue offering) then I should have the right to include that insubordination in their performance review, or even fire the staff that won't do what the hospital asks.

[Marie]

Amazing, the radical liberal extremists on here.

Everyone posting on here has such preconceived misconceptions. Why does it have to have anything to do with religion? If a person goes into the medical field because they want to help and heal people, they shouldn't be told that they must also be required to dismember children and throw them in a dumpster, or crush a baby's skull and suck out the brain, while they watch it die. Why do you think that only religious zealots would find that unconscionable and repugnant? What does religion have to do with it? You don't have to be some religious extremist to feel that those most innocent of human lives have value, and you don't want to be forced to be the one to terminate it.

Think for a moment of the potential in your own employment, for the government to try to force you to do something you firmly believe to be wrong. If someone has been a firefighter for ten years, and is suddenly told that they will now be obligated to uphold a new law, and burn the homes of lower income families without homeowner's insurance - the reaction would likely be, "NO! That's just wrong! And it flies in the face of everything that made me want to be a fireman in the first place, that's why I voted against that new law, now they want to force ME to be the one to carry it out . . . " How is that imposing your religion on someone else? What does religion have to do with it?

Do you really believe that you have to be a religious nut-job to have a conscience?

[Lyn]

Some of the negative comments are ridiculous if taken seriously. Driving to a clinic 300 miles away to find out the doctor won't perform the procedure? This is America, the doctors are not that far and few between. Ever hear of the modern invention called the telephone? The answer is just a call away...
No, there are enough doctors out there who are willing to perform abortions--I say allow the conscience of others to prevail. There should be no hysteria when it comes to this new rule.

[Larry linn]

How many prescription drugs are utilized to treat many medical problems? There are medical situations where estrogen is prescribed for medical problems of a woman that cannot conceive. If the pharmacist declines to fulfill the prescription, and the patient encounters other medical problems, is the pharmacist liable?

[wintersmith]

The rest of us has to deal with performing "morally objectionable" actions all the damn time in our jobs. Sorry, doctors shouldn't get (yet more) special dispensations.

[KA]

Everyone has the right to refuse to do something. If that something is part of your job, however, then your employer has the right to fire you. Simple as that. This ruling disgusts me.

[Mike Nelson]

I have epilepsy. Growing in the 60's, adult family members actually believed that I was cursed. Being raised a catholic this had an incredible impact on my childhood.

What if a person in my neurologist's office had the same opinion and refused to do their job because of it? There is no difference between this and Bush's conscience rule.

One of our country's strongest beliefs is freedom of religion and there are many different types. This will be giving it to one but not the other.

[Astounded, MD]

I am astounded and disgusted as a medical doctor with this absurd ruling
Physicians and other health care providers HAVE NO BUSINESS
inflicting their beliefs on patients.

What about the Christian Science provider who feels adamantly against antibiotics and chooses OUT OF CONSCIENCE to NOT PRESCRIBE to your child with strep throat...

What about Scientologist Psychiatrists who do not tell your depressed suicidal teen that medication options exist...can you say suicide...

Many people have belief systems that the RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHT is appalled by...they too will be able to defend MALPRACTICE as based on Faith

NO ONE is Forced to do anything in medicine this notion is absurd and another Republi-con

Up until now it was medically appropriate to educate people about all their options...and refer if you disagreed with what a patient chose

Next time your Doctor misses your diagnosis, all of you smug people so content with this ruling, I can't wait until they stand up in court and defend malpractice on the basis that THEY FOLLOWED THEIR CONSCIENCE !!!

You are flippantly and foolishly removing everyones protections by supporting this latest absurdity

A radical religious minority supporting the oppression of others free will...
can you say American Tali ban!!!!