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The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious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

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

But the FDA doesn't specify that you MUST prescribe those medications, or perform those procedures, except if dictated by an immediate medical necessity.

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,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Um, no one is talking about forcing people to do anything. People have their own arrangements with their employers and there is give and take on either side, and this sort of thing is usually taken care of on its own. Allowing someone to be fired for refusal to work is just normal. What's new is the idea that someone can unilaterally dictate the terms of their employment under some misguided sense of freedom.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Ok, maybe I misunderstand the issue.

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,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

There could be that issue, I don't know, but I think this one is about protections for any person involved in medical care deciding not to participate for personal reasons. There are issues surrounding Catholic institutions and hospitals and forcing them to do things or cutting their subsidies or something like that. The issue is so thorny it's hard to keep it straight. People just pick a side and go along on all of them, instead of looking at them individually.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well I'll ask the following hypothetical.

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,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think they should face legal or tort consequences for that.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Ok, well I strongly expect that many on the right think this is at least one of the major things which it provided protection from.

The first statement of the link provided seems to back up this view:

Remember the Bush Administration's "conscience rule"? The one that would have allowed health providers to deny patients treatment based on religious grounds? The one that would have allowed pharmacists to deny women access to contraceptives simply because they thought contraceptives were immoral?

It doesn't seem to be talking about employees; it appears to be talking about organisations as a whole who choose not to provide certain services.

I think this is very much worthy of clarification.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Right. The two questions are addressing two separate issues. A pharmacist who is an employee of a pharmacy having a dispute with their employer is different from "health providers denying patients treatment on religious grounds".

The issue being talked about now is "protecting" employees from employers. Forcing organizations wholesale, on the other hand, is something different.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

From the article:

Federal laws make clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion, Ms. Sebelius said. The Bush rule went far beyond these laws and upset the balance between patients’ rights to obtain health care and “the conscience rights of health care providers,” she added.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

And:

The Obama administration said the 2008 rule might have mistakenly suggested that health care providers could refuse to treat entire groups of people on account of the providers’ religious or moral beliefs.

Federal laws provide no protection for such refusals, the administration said.

Of course, this would run afoul of basic discrimination law in this country; ie: you can't refuse to treat black people because they're black and your idiosyncratic religious views motivate this discrimination.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Re: forcing organizations to perform abortions;

In response to such concerns, the Obama administration said, “Roman Catholic hospitals will have the same statutory protections afforded to them for decades” because the laws were not affected by the cancellation of the Bush rule.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well that clears that up, for me at least.

I think its confused in part because there are vocal groups out there, particularly feminist groups, that think that Roman Catholic hospitals shouldn't be allowed to refuse either.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Oh I'm sure there are. But we, as responsible, mature and diplomatic people, seeking wisdom and peace, would find any outcome forcing any side to do anything so draconically imposed to be offensive to our deliberate sensibilities.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Off-topic, is there are word to describe being both sarcastic and perfectly serious at the same time?

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Or more precisely, being sarcastic, and perfectly in earnest, at the same time.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Ha, I don't know. I just listen to Captain Jean-Luc Picard. He never sets me wrong.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

After seeing Patrick Stewart on the Extras, I always imagine his persona sitting behind Jean-Luc's forehead, smiling inside and thinking thoughts like "Good show old boy, that made us sound utterly magnificent" whenever Captain Picard says anything like that.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Here's a link to the segment, in case you've never seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_cwI1Xj4M

Re: Um,

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I think "half jest, whole earnest" might be what you're looking for.

Re: Um,

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

And, of course, you can't actually force them to do anything, since the Catholics would shut down their hospital in a heart-beat if any such thing were to occur. Instead, we should strive to find the most agreeable and productive measures which would preserve hospitals and their services.

Re: Um,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Certainly. Or at least measures that don't prejudice their ability to provide hospitals and their valuable services in a way agreeable to personal freedom.

Re: Um,

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

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,

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Really? Illegal or just not done?