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

[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!!!!