Obama to undo "conscience" rules for health providers

[.Shane.]

Source

The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.
...

This is something Bush pushed through in the last weeks of his presidency and only took effect on the day Obama was inaugurated. I'm not sure why Bush did that knowing that it would be undone... maybe to draw (the inevitable) attention to the issue?

But, as I've argued elsewhere, I think this is a loser issue for them (Repub party) in the culture wars. If you think through the implications of this, it would've been very dangerous to allow. Do you really want doctors and pharmacists to become agents of morality? Its not just contraceptives etc... but do you want to be denied access to, say, anti-depressants because the only pharmacists in your area is a scientologist? What if I'm just morally opposed to passing out ritalin? etc... etc....

At any rate, another brick in the wall is undone.

 

[CaptainF]

Good for him. Morality has no place in today's laws. Suck it up and do your job for chrissakes!

 

[emzie]

If I ever tried to get a prescription filled and the pharmacist said no because of conscience, I would his or her license. Shouldn't've gone into a public field if you were going to have moral qualms.

 

[Masquerouge]

To be honest I kinda remember Clinton doing the same thing (passing last-minute measures that were going to be overturned on day 1 by Bush). They're mostly feel-good measures to please the base.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Getting denied health-care because of a physician's moral opinions is reprehensible. I kinda read somewhere a case of a woman being denied a tubal ligation because of something similar.

 

[emzie]

Getting denied health-care because of a physician's moral opinions is reprehensible. I kinda read somewhere a case of a woman being denied a tubal ligation because of something similar.

In non-emergency situations, I think a doctor should have the right to opt out of procedures as so long as access to the procedure itself isn't denied. A doctor probably shouldn't go into obstetrics and gynaecology if you don't want to advise a woman on how to access abortion clinics.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yeah, I agree with that. As long as there are always other options.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think a doctor should be able to pass on a patient to a colleague if they cannot perform a procedure. This would be true any time he's out of his capability. Honestly, I don't think doctors should be forced to do abortions by the government.

 

[Mise]

If there were no alternative I wouldn't mind sacrificing the wishes of the doctor for the needs of the patient.

 

[emzie]

I think a doctor should be able to pass on a patient to a colleague if they cannot perform a procedure. This would be true any time he's out of his capability. Honestly, I don't think doctors should be forced to do abortions by the government.

Say it's a true medical emergency and you're an ER doctor? Ultimately, your patients health should triumph in such a situation. Or you shouldn't be a doctor.

 

[.Shane.]

I don't think doctors should be forced to do abortions by the government.

There was already an exemption for abortion long before what Bush put in place. And... I doubt Obama will undue that.

This is more about a pharmacist not selling someone the "Day After" pill or the regular old pill or condoms, etc...

Plus, what about other medicines or procedures outside of the reproductive rights arena? You really want to have to fill your anti-depressants at the pharmacy 30 miles away because the local pharmacist objects?

 

[El_Machinae]

.Shane. your question seems to be a convenience question vs. his conscience. Now, I guess I'm not 30 mi away from another pharmacist, so it's tough to be properly empathic.

 

[Cutlass]

It was reprehensible policy. The religious wrong has been building up to it for a few years. In towns with a variety of health care professionals or a couple of hospitals people could have worked around it. But in towns with limited choices it was essentially a backdoor method of imposing religious view on people of different views.

 

[Mise]

It's a question of whether the patients needs come first. I think they do. And if someone's beliefs prevent them from doing what they're paid to do, they should be fired.

Now, that's not to say that alternatives shouldn't be considered. And in the vast majority of cases, the alternatives are perfectly acceptable. But there should not be a law that entitles health professionals moral veto over those in their care.

 

[illram]

What are the official "rules" i.e. ethical duties of doctors vis a vis performing procedures they are morally against? I am assuming there is some AMA guideline... then again I don't really know much about regulations for doctors.

I kind of agree that a private doctor shouldn't be forced to do a procedure they are against, unless their professional guidelines say otherwise.

 

[.Shane.]

@illram... not everyone lives in a big city with lots of options (many hospitals or clinics very close by) or has a health plan that gives them lots of choices.

 

[illram]

@illram... not everyone lives in a big city with lots of options (many hospitals or clinics very close by) or has a health plan that gives them lots of choices.

Right, but I am assuming there is some official ethical duty governing a doctor in a situation like that.

Basically, I am saying doctors should be following their professional guidelines, as opposed to a presidential/government directive (or insurance directive?), regardless of what that directive says.

 

[Cutlass]

Right, but I am assuming there is some official ethical duty governing a doctor in a situation like that.

Basically, I am saying doctors should be following their professional guidelines, as opposed to a presidential/government directive (or insurance directive?), regardless of what that directive says.

If one doesn't follow a code of ethics over "conscious" then it could well be too late for the patient before the patient has other options. However if a health care pro in some of these ares doesn't follow the local conscious, then he could be setting himself up for a world of hurt.

That combination does not bode well for the patient unless the law is clear.

 

[illram]

If one doesn't follow a code of ethics over "conscious" then it could well be too late for the patient before the patient has other options. However if a health care pro in some of these ares doesn't follow the local conscious, then he could be setting himself up for a world of hurt.

That combination does not bode well for the patient unless the law is clear.

So are you saying the government should enforce a doctors code of ethics? Wouldn't he be just as screwed as far as the locals go in your hypo? I am just saying a doctors professional ethics should govern their activity in this hypothetical, not their conscience. I wouldn't really sanction much criminalization of a doctor failing in that regard, there is already plenty of civil liability they could face plus losing their medical license.

Again, I don't know much about this particular area, just conversatin'...

 

[innonimatu]

I kind of agree that a private doctor shouldn't be forced to do a procedure they are against, unless their professional guidelines say otherwise.

And so do I. Doctors (or "health providers"... ) should not be mere cogs in some health care system. Attempting to reduce them to such a role cannot work, for who will police them? Better to have their honest opinion (even if it is "I won't do it, fond someone else") that to place them in impossible dilemmas which may harm either the doctor or the patient.
In emergency situations... well, it will always be up to the doctor's moral judgment, but laws against refusal of aid may help bring about a better outcome.

In this particular case it seems that the "protection" dropped was against being fired or rejected as an employee. That's probably unnecessary, even if it does have an impact on the kind of doctors who will have the most professional success. But if it was instead about imposing some kind of obligation on private practitioners, I would point out that they're not anyone's slaves...

Dawgphood001, law is all about morality. I didn't think so once, but if you look even every judgment on utility is moral.