(no subject)

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

http://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The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or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.

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.

Comments

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"'There isn't a place for conscientious objectors in medicine.'

Of course, there is."

Moreover, conscientious objection to various procedures is an ineliminable part of the clinical judgment which is exercised daily by medical professionals.

But that's not really the question here.

The question is rather whether the exercise of that judgment ought to be protected by law such that no consequences can arise from it for the practitioner, or rather whether, while being required to exercise such judgment, overzealous or insufficient restraint can indeed lead to substantial consequences.

Using another's analogy: in fact we expect bus drivers to conscientiously object to applying the gas in a wide number of scenarios. But if their judgment on this manner sufficiently varies from their employer's expectations, they'll tend to face some consequences. Should we intervene to protect the bus driver from these consequences?

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

yes, that's a very important and useful clarification.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

A point of clarification here:

Do you know if this ruling affects whether or not the EMPLOYER were protected by these rules from legal or tort consequences, where they refuse, or permit their employees to refuse, to provide abortion or related services?

Thats the understanding I have from reading the linked article. It talks about health providers and pharmacists, rather than doctors and employees of pharmacies, specifically. That seems also to be the impression that some have.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Please disregard that. This has been clarified elsewhere.