Currently, the Obama administration is trying to rescind the conscience protection for our medical professionals. This protection currently (in theory) protects a person from having legal action taken against them if they refuse to do something because it goes against their conscience and/or religion. A woman cannot sue a doctor for not giving her an abortion referral. A business cannot fire an employee for not filling out a birth control prescription. A doctor can tell his patients that, if they are his patients, they cannot write in their living wills that they want to be denied necessities (such as food and water). &c. &c.
To do away with this protection is to attack our freedom of religion, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution. In addition, it is (yet again) the government trying to deny us our rights. I shudder to think of how they are stripping us of our rights piece by piece.
I think of everything the greats of our history have given to this nation and am disgusted to realize that now we are giving those rights (that they gave their ENTIRE LIVES for) away...it is vital that we stop it HERE. If we give the government an inch of authority, they will take a mile. Stop it NOW.
Please sign this petition that shows the government what YOU THINK on taking away our protection of conscience. If you are a healthcare professional, please sign this petition (the two petitions differ).
Well, as usual, our favorite little pro-live advocate is only giving us PART of the story. What "respectlife" is leaving out is the fact that what is being considered for reversal was a last-minute expansion to already existing consicence protections, that the Bush Administration enacted through a presidential order on his way out of the White House. In fact, there are provisions in the U.S. Code which more than sufficiently protect healthcare providers from participating in procedures to which they have a "moral" objection, and which would not be affected by the reversal being considered by the Obama Administration.
What the Bush expansion did was to make permissible a "consciencious objection" NOT ONLY for procedures to which a medical professional objects on moral grounds, but ALSO on the basis on the identity of the recipient of the procedure. Likewise, the Bush rule extends existing protections that were intended to apply only to medical service providers to almost anyone even remotely involved in a patient's healthcare. This rule unwisely permits (for example) pharmacists to fill legal prescriptions given to them by a physician. The rule also allows providers to defraud patients by omitting or even providing false information about available services and treatments that are available. It even allows cashiers to refuse payment for prescriptions. Under the Bush rule, pharmacists may even refuse to dispense HIV medications, and may even go so far as refusing to return the prescription for transfer to another provider who will service the patient's needs.
This rule also enables individual providers to effectively eliminate access to procedures and perscriptions in areas where no other service provider is readily available. For example, if you live in a small town with only one pharmacy, a pharmacist can essentially prevent everyone (or at least everyone who isn't well off enough to be able to afford to travel to a neighboring town or city in order to obtain their meds) in that town from obtaining birth control pills. The main reason that the pro-life camp wants this rule to remain in place is because it permits them to lie to women who are seeking an abortions about about available services and treatment options...something that is plainly required by current standards of medical ethics.
A good example of why the Bush rule is a problem can be seen in the case of Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Med. Group (2008), which was in fact one of controversial and very public cases which prompted Bush to enact this rule (on his last day in office, the coward) in the first place. In this case, a provider of in-vitro services accepted a patient and agreed to provide the service, but then renigged after treatment had begun because the provider discovered that the patient was a lesbian. The provider didn't have a consience objection to providing in-vitro services. Rather, the provider had a problem, specifically, with providing those services to lesbians. This case was decided in favor of the plaintiff under the normal rules of medical ethics and pre-existing laws. The Bush would "protects" providers like this who have no particular objection to a procedure to refuse to treat a person simply because they do not like the person seeking treatment. This rule is rediculous, and unethical. It is opposed by the full range of the major medical professional agenciens, including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
side of the story but that's what we have you for, for correcting or expanding what seems left out of respectlife's blogs.....
this is why I tend to not comment or further a certain discussion because what starts on unequal footing should not be given a second look. but I guess we have to fight misinformation or half truths with knowledge and information.
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
It's so true! Go, Blackout!
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
our favorite little pro-live advocate
:) Thanks
For example, if you live in a small town with only one pharmacy, a pharmacist can essentially prevent everyone (or at least everyone who isn't well off enough to be able to afford to travel to a neighboring town or city in order to obtain their meds) in that town from obtaining birth control pills.
BS. If the person doesn't like their pharmacist, they can go to another pharmacy. If the pharmacist wasn't there in the first place, the town wouldn't be able to get any medications. We now live in an age where it's not difficult at all to get someone from point A to point B, especially if that simply means a 5 minute extra drive. It's not like America is full of small towns with the next town being 100 miles away and the only way to get there is on horse. o.O If the pharmacy owner doesn't want BC in their pharmacy, they should be able to refuse to provide it. If a worker doesn't want to fill out a prescription or make a sale, they shouldn't have to. To do otherwise strips them of THEIR rights.
The main reason that the pro-life camp wants this rule to remain in place is because it permits them to lie to women who are seeking an abortions about about available services and treatment options...something that is plainly required by current standards of medical ethics.
Oddly enough, the main reason the pro-life camp wants this rule to remain in place is because we believe that people should have the right to obey their conscience, especially on moral issues. The main reason the pro-death advocates want Obama to pass this is because the abortion and contraception industry is making quite a bit of money and they like their money. So don't you DARE try to make us the bad guys. If nothing else, we're in it to help people and they're in it for their pocketbooks.
The Bush would "protects" providers like this who have no particular objection to a procedure to refuse to treat a person simply because they do not like the person seeking treatment.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, you should support the ability for someone to be able to abide by their conscience like that. I disagree with in vitro fertilization entirely, so I don't think that provider should be doing it to anyone. One thing that the liberals nowadays do not understand is that by forcing acceptance of every small group they can come up with, they are stripping us of the many rights that our ancestors fought so hard to provide for the future generations. Don't get too caught up in your ideas and give up your basic freedoms. Don't do that to yourself, don't do that to me, don't do that to the future.
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
BS. If the person doesn't like their pharmacist, they can go to another pharmacy...If the pharmacy owner doesn't want BC in their pharmacy, they should be able to refuse to provide it. If a worker doesn't want to fill out a prescription or make a sale, they shouldn't have to. To do otherwise strips them of THEIR rights.
What you are suggesting is invidious discrimination in its most basic and frankly disgusting form. It is illegal to discriminate against people in public accommodations on the basis of an invidious categorization. A pharmacist serving the public certainly falls within that. You don't get to refuse service to people just because you have a "moral" *sic* objection to them.
Besides that, for a pharmacist to project his personal values into the relationship is implicitly unethical, as is the idea that a pharmacist can selectively refuse to serve members, and both are specifically forbidden by the Pharmacist Code of Ethics...
Oddly enough, the main reason the pro-life camp wants this rule to remain in place is because we believe that people should have the right to obey their conscience, especially on moral issues...So don't you DARE try to make us the bad guys.
Horsepuckey. All medical professionals have a perfectly legal AND ethical means of refusing to participate in procedures that they find incompatible with their personal beliefs. Those guidelines do NOT protect invidious discrimination nor do they permit a professional to selectively refuse treatments on the basis of personal beliefs and preferences. Basically, if you can't accept the ethical standards set by the medical community, you are expected to recuse yourself entirely. It is also incredibly presumptuous (and again, highly unethical) for secondary providers to refuse to carry through with the treatments prescribed by the patient's doctor.
And, whether you like it or not, YOU ARE THE BAD GUYS HERE. You are advocating for a policy that allows ideological assholes to interrupt the most basic principles of the patient-provider relationship. There is noting even the slightest bit commendable about this policy, which is why the mainstream medical community is up in arms about it.
Regardless of whether or not you agree, you should support the ability for someone to be able to abide by their conscience like that.
Hardly. YOUR right to follow YOUR conscience does not permit you to prevent ME from following MINE. There is, of course, and obvious potential conflict in this, which is why all medical professionals take oaths that define the ethical boundaries between the personal feelings of the provider and the right of self-determination that belongs to the patient. If someone can't handle that ethical burden, then they have no business working anywhere in the field of healthcare.
Don't get too caught up in your ideas and give up your basic freedoms. Don't do that to yourself, don't do that to me, don't do that to the future.
Bullshit, YOU are the one trying to take away people's rights, here...in fact, that's the whole point of the pro-life movement. Women have the right to have an abortion...it is a fact of settled law...get over it. Anything that you do to try to change that is taking away a basic civil right of women. THAT MAKES YOU THE BAD GUY. And spare us the failed "baby killer" crap that is sure to follow (as it always does from you). The pro-life movement lost that argument during Roe. As long as that case stands--and being settled law, it isn't even remotely likely to ever be struck down--you loose the argument. So why don't YOU quit fucking around with people's basic freedoms.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Yes, they should. I can buy into your argument for people who actually provide care, but cashiers should have no choice as to who they make a sale to. Jewish cashiers should not be able to refuse to ring up pork because they don't eat it. Mormon cashiers should not be able to refuse the sale of alcohol because they don't drink it. If you don't want to sell these things, go to an establishment that doesn't sell them, plain and simple.
If the pharmacy as a whole does not want to dispense a certain medication (and birth control and the abortion pill seem to be the main contenders here), then sure, they should be able to refuse. But they should also only be able to do so if there is another pharmacy in a reasonable distance that WILL provide that service, just as a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion is obligated to give a referral to a physician who will.
If a nurse in a hospital does not want to treat a certain patient, that she (or he) needs to ensure that another nurse will provide that treatment if the patient wants it, especially if the patient needs it. If you don't want to work with HIV positive people, you shouldn't be working in a public hospital... go work in a private hospital that suits your own needs.
As far as:
The patients have the right to treatment. Whose right is more important? Healthcare is not the same sort of service industry as a restaurant. Doctors and other care providers have some leeway as to accepting patients and refusing them, but they can't just randomly refuse a patient, especially without giving a referral. To do so violates the code of ethics they agree to.
We had a lady come in to the hospital today who didn't have any prenatal care, and gave birth. I can't refuse to draw her blood just because, say, she was unmarried. I can arrange it so that someone else draws her for me, by asking my coworkers to draw her instead, but I can't just refuse to draw her and leave it at that. I can only refuse if my safety is threatened, say, if she came in combative, and people couldn't hold her down long enough for me to get blood from her.
Oh, give me a break. As I've said before, people ALREADY COULD refuse procedures. If you were to become a doctor, no one would FORCE you to give an abortion if you were morally opposed to it. But, you would have to provide a referral to someone who WOULD provide that care.
The main reason we (and don't go into the whole 'pro-death' stance... this issue is far more complicated than pro-life and pro-death, and NO ONE wakes up in the morning saying 'oh, I want to go kill some babies today'. At least, no one we'd allow near us with a scalpel) want this passed is because it places ridiculous standards on the moral conscience laws. Planned Parenthood should not be required to hire someone who isn't going to do their job because they're morally opposed to it.
Good thing your conscience isn't the one making the laws. But that physician should not be able to refuse treatment after he agreed to it simply because he found out about the sexual orientation of his patient. See my example above.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!