...then find a new one.
Withholding any relevant information from a patient is negligence and should be treated as thus. If it is against your morals to provide the full spectrum of options in reproductive protection and health, you are not equipped to hold that position.

How many diseases have/could be spread because one "Doctor" lectured about couples discipline and abstinence instead of condoms?
How many abortions or unwanted pregnancies could that belief system account for?

Stupidity knows no bounds.

(CNN) -- An organization of Christian physicians argued Wednesday against an impending rollback of a federal rule allowing health care workers to refuse to provide certain reproductive services, saying it's discriminatory.
The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The Bush White House proposed the rule in August, and it was enacted January 20, the day President Obama took office. It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for health care professionals who don't want to perform abortions.

Under the rule, workers in health care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

The Obama administration is expected to reverse the rule shortly, touching off a new wave of heated debate over what remains one of the most sensitive and emotional hot-button issues in American politics.

" 'Right of conscience' is under attack, and that is dangerous for our country, our health care system and our patients," said Dr. David Stevens, head of the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association.

"When the state demands that we surrender our conscience, it becomes totalitarian and dangerous. Do we want our professional schools to ethically neuter doctors of all moral convictions that are not approved by the government?" Video Watch CNN's Sanjay Gupta discuss the 'conscience clause' »

Stevens was speaking on behalf of Freedom to Care, an umbrella organization of 36 groups working to prevent a rollback of the rule. Video Watch why one pharmacist says the "conscience clause" is needed »

Many health care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe that health care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. And critics of the current rule argue that there are laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.
Don't Miss

* White House set to reverse conscience clause

"We don't make God-like decisions. ... That's not what it's about for us. It's about helping the patient make their own decision. ... No one appointed us to be the ultimate person to pass judgment," said Mary Jean Schumann, a member of the American Nurses Association.

Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chairwoman of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."

"Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama [is taking steps] to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."

Stevens argued that there is "a well-funded and increasingly successful effort to discriminate against health care professionals based upon their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

Rescinding the rule will send "a clear message," he said: "It's open season on health care professionals of conscience. Discriminate at will. If anyone should understand the ugliness of discrimination, it is our first African-American president."

Stevens predicted that a large number of specialists in obstetrics and gynecology would leave the medical profession if the rule is repealed.

A final announcement from the Obama administration is expected with the conclusion of a 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule change.

"We do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place," a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services official said in February.

Views: 21

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Stupidity knows no bounds.

If you are concerned that your doctor hold differing moral views than you, you should find yourself another doctor. Does it make sense that all doctors are forced to act in ways that are against their conscience? I would not expect a Mormon doctor to perform a transfusion, or a male Muslim doctor to take on female patients.

There are many valid concerns, irrespective of ones religion, to not perform or provide for all possible medical treatments. There have also been many advances thanks to the religious beliefs of some. For instance, it is amazing how far blood science has come since Mormons refuse to receive blood transfusion. Artificial blood and bloodless surgeries have been developed so that Mormons do not have to violate their personal beliefs. These techniques have had tremendous lifesaving results in the non-Mormon population.

Restrictions on what one can use has often resulted in creative and innovative solutions to problems. I would challenge your belief that restricting services are in and of itself a bad thing. Much science, knowledge and lifesaving techniques have arisen from it.

Tip for life: Don't be so bitter. Let people make their own choices.
Who's bitter? That's sort of rude to say...

Anyway, doctors SHOULD tell their patients about all their options and make sure they're informed. Doctors should, for the most part, be objective and not too emotionally involved in their patients' conditions. If they don't want to perform certain services, I think they should have a right to decline; however, they should be obligated to refer their patient to someone who WILL perform the service.
Why should a doctor be emotionally distant and completely objective? Sorry, but I agree with Patch Adams on this one. Doctors should and are obligated to become emotional involved with their patients. Doctors are not machines. They are humans, filled with their own emotional drives, feelings, and desires. To reject this view of doctors is dangerous. Removing humanity from medicine is like removing pleasure from sex. Not something that is good or healthy to do!

Look... if you involve yourself emotionally with every patient you encounter, you're going to have an emotional breakdown. You can continue to be caring, but to get too involved is unrealistic and potentially harmful to their mental health. You're right: doctors are not machines, so they can't be expected to carry the load on their own shoulders. Like any other JOB, you must leave your work at work unless you want it to overwhelm you. I'm not saying "humanity" should be removed, but it's not their job to save people's SOULS.
Of course it's excellent to consider and implement alternative techniques, but someone who disagrees with performing a required and previously-known component of his/her job should not have sought out that career in the first place.

Why should anyone employ a contractor who refuses to use concrete based on some religious dogma? It's ridiculous to allow professionals to disregard certain aspects of their jobs just because they don't want to perform them.

If they don't want to perform certain services, I think they should have a right to decline; however, they should be obligated to refer their patient to someone who WILL perform the service.

That would only work given that there is someone else available willing to perform that service. What happens when an entire network of local health care providers all refuse to perform blood transfusions, for example? What is the patient supposed to do? Move across the country? Get some back-street operation? Die? Doctors are not paid to act on their religious opinions. They are paid to provide the best, total care possible.

The attitude Misty expresses is not bitter; it's pro-active. A country's work-force cannot survive when it refuses to work!
Pam, you missed my point when I brought up alternatives. These alternatives would not have been sought out had certain groups of the population not refused to perform certain procedures. These alternatives have been researched and developed solely by the groups that disagree with current accepted treatment. The "traditional" medical community laughed at their efforts, claiming that it was pointless. Artificial blood and bloodless surgeries were not even thought possible. It took the religious conviction of a few to develop these alternatives.

There is another question that is raised. Should all bio-ethical decisions be in the hands of the patient? Does the doctor have no role in determining what is ethical and what is not? It concerns me, your emphasis on the financial component of the debate. Is not a job more than simply a transaction of funds? Often it is moral convictions that lead a doctor to undertake years of schooling in order to become a doctor. The financial draw to being a doctor can be met in much easier ways. If the person is a doctor because of his spiritual convictions, then should they not also be allowed to act upon such convictions?

For instance, consider euthanasia. If a patient desires to die, must a doctor be obligated to assist with their suicide? If Euthanasia becomes legalized, this may become the situation. Yet, for some, this will amount to murder. Murder in various religious groups is wrong. By referring the patient to someone else, they become an accomplice to murder, which is equally wrong in their eyes. So, a doctor is unable, if they view Euthanasia as murder, to even refer their patient to someone else. Other instances are similar, such as abortion.

If the above holds true, then I find it hard to differentiate between that and forcing doctors to act against other personal moral standings, especially those that arise from a religious belief. I think the Doctor, as well as the contractor, should be allowed to perform their job in alignment with their conscience.

Sorry for confusing pro-action with being bitter. Sometimes they look so much alike!

Or a Scientologist working in psychiatry. Just tell all your patients to become scientologists, as psychiatry is a fake profession. Easy and profitable, as the patients would have to shell out for lessons on thetans, etc.
No, not all doctors should be expected to assist in ending a suffering patients life; only specialists would be expected to carry that out. No one who takes up that practice would consider it immoral, and no one requesting it would either.
Yep. You're right. I agree.
First of all, you've got your religions mixed up. The Mormons do not have a restriction upon blood transfusions (or organ donations, or birth control), you are probably thinking of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds.

Second, if you allow refusals based on religious beliefs, where does it stop? How do you feel about the Muslim doctors in England who were recently in the news because they refused to follow standard scrubbing procedure (washing the hands and arms to the elbow) before a surgery because their religion said it was immodest to expose the arm above the wrist? Should they be allowed to operate anyhow and potentially endanger their patients' lives? How about if a Christian Scientist got a job at a pharmacy and refused to fill any prescriptions whatsoever, as their beliefs state that all that is needed to treat illness is prayer? Or a Scientologist who refuses to dispense psychiatric medications? Or even a Jew who gets a job in a butcher's shop, then refuses to touch the pork?

There has to be a balance between the beliefs of the people doing the jobs, and the demands of the job. If one's beliefs are such that the person cannot do the job for which they were hired, by the standards of their employer, then they should not work at that job. Instead, if being employed in that field is important to them, and they wish to follow the restrictions of their religion as well, it'd be best for them to start their own medical practice/pharmacy/etc, as has been done in some places.
I totally agree with everything you said, exactly as you said it. :)
Thanks. :)


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service