(no subject)
22/2/11 12:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dv8nation.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/19/946995/-Obama-administration-rescinds-Bushs-conscience-rule-for-medical-providers
The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.
The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the rule, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, could “negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services.”
It's good to see that common sense CAN sometimes prevail in DC. There isn't a place for conscientious objectors in medicine.The patient is the one who makes the decisions which is as it should be. I know I wouldn't want to have to go hunting for an atheist doctor if a medical choice I wanted to make conflicted with that of my regular doctor.
Plus, it's a kick in the balls to the religious right which is always nice.
Um,
Date: 22/2/11 21:28 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 21:56 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 21:56 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:01 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:01 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:40 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:42 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:48 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 04:15 (UTC)A 2007 article in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association estimates the cost of a lower extremity amputation at $30,000 to $60,000, with an additional $43,000 to $60,000 for subsequent care for 3 years.
Specifically, this article:
Organized Programs to Prevent Lower-Extremity Amputations
by Lee C. Rogers, DPM & Nicholas J. Bevilacqua, DPM
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association
Volume 100 Number 2 101-104 2010 (http://www.japmaonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/2/101)
If that information is incorrect, I would recommend telling the those doctors and the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association to alter their peer review.
Although I don't know what hero you're referring to. Certainly not mine.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:03 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:04 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:06 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:16 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:24 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 01:56 (UTC)Er.....
Date: 23/2/11 02:05 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 22:55 (UTC)I'm all for abortions to be on demand, with only the most sensible restrictions, but I can't really get behind anyone being compelled to perform elective actions contrary to their moral beliefs, or be forced out of their profession, IF there is not some other overriding moral obligation that requires it, such as a life saving situation etc.
It just seems incredibly wrong and contrary to the higher principle of human freedom.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:01 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:09 (UTC)I thought it was along the lines that a private practitioner, or private group of practitioners who are not employees, could have their medical licenses revoked and/or be sued, if they refused to provide an elective abortion.
If we're talking about employees of a company being penalised for refusing to do the job they are asked to do, then that's fine.
In fact, it's pretty ironic to see conservatives supporting anything like this that leaves less than ultimate power in the hands of the employer to dictate the terms of employment.
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:13 (UTC)Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:37 (UTC)A group of Catholic doctors set up a private practice in a major city.
They decide that, being observant Catholics, its abhorrent to each of them to perform abortions and make it a policy that they are able to decline to do so unless required by medical necessity. If someone really wanted one, there are other practices and medical services available elsewhere in the city.
Do you think in this instance they should face legal or tort consequences if they fail to provide elective abortions?
Re: Um,
Date: 22/2/11 23:39 (UTC)Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
From:Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 04:19 (UTC)They decide that, being observant Catholics, its abhorrent to each of them to perform abortions and make it a policy that they are able to decline to do so unless required by medical necessity. If someone really wanted one, there are other practices and medical services available elsewhere in the city.
Do you think in this instance they should face legal or tort consequences if they fail to provide elective abortions?
What you describe would be no problem. What people are afraid of is the issue that people have been having with fundamentalist pharmacists. In order for your situation to be analogous, this is what it would have to be:
They decide that, being observant Catholics, its abhorrent to each of them to perform abortions and make it a policy that they are able to decline to do so regardless of medical necessity. They also refuse to refer people for abortions elsewhere, and should a patient seek an abortion from another provider, refuse to provide medical records for doing so.
(Fundamentalist pharmacists have been doing this with BC, regardless of what it has been prescribed for, and refusing to transfer prescriptions out of religious fervor. Each time they bring it up, they're getting roundly smacked by pharmacist boards and companies they work for.)
Re: Um,
Date: 23/2/11 04:22 (UTC)