Christian Doctors Angry Over "Conscience Rule" Reversal

So in January, right before Obama took office, the Bush administration added a clause to Health and Human Services regulations that allows health care workers (doctors, pharmacists, etc.) to refuse to provide certain services if they have moral problems with them. For instance, if a doctor feels morally uncomfortable performing artificial insemination for a lesbian couple, or if a pharmacist feels morally uncomfortable filling a prescription for birth control pills, they could refuse to do so. Now, the Obama administration is probably going to roll back this change, so that health care workers won't be able to refuse service for moral reasons. And conservative Christian doctors are unhappy about, and say that their beliefs are being discriminated against.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...use/index.html

My own feelings on this issue are pretty divided. On the one hand, these health care workers are private citizens--it's not like they're working for the government--and there's a strong argument that they ought to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government forcing private citizens to provide services that they don't want to provide. On the other hand, I'm equally uncomfortable with rape victims, stupid teenagers, etc. becoming pregnant against their will because their local pharmacist happens to be a fundamentalist moron who thinks that the morning after pill is sinful.

Thoughts on this?

Plenty of private citizens are legally bound to behave in certain ways against their conscience in their professional lives. If you can make laws prohibiting sexism, racism et al, which force employers and businesspeople to occasionally go against their prejudices, you can prohibit the refusal of medical service on the same grounds. What we call our "consciences" are really nothing more than our individual collections of prejudices.

The only thing I worry about is the level of care these people will get, and the immoral ways in which some doctors and healthcare professionals might act now that they're forced into giving service.

I too am split over this one. I am never a big fan of the government interfering with private citizens. For me, if they intend to do so then they need a good reason. Because this relates to an individuals moral principles...I do believe that if you are opposed to something on moral grounds, you shouldn't be forced into it.

Although I would like to ask, why did these people get into healthcare if they are going to let their religious and/or political views guide their actions? If they are allowed to refuse treatment, then they are essentially punishing people for not living their lives the way the doctor would have them. This worries me. I do believe that the driving force behind healthcare decisions should be patient orientated, what is best for the patient. I do believe that if you go into this profession, you need to leave the christian and/or conservative at the door.

However, how large is this group of health care professionals? Is it large enough that there might be a potential risk to patients? The link cited that that group had 15,000 members. That is alot. To take something said in the link, doctors will have to take action to help a patient that might not always be in line with their beliefs, that is the sacrifice you need to make as a doctor.

Okay, back the train up a little, bub.

I would not object to a conscience rule. However, the version of it implemented by the Bush administration went way too far, as it allowed the complete prevention of legal medical procedures. Its wording not only allowed individual doctors to not perform procedures they felt were against their moral code, it also allowed entire hospitals and (more importantly) health insurance companies to do so as well.

In addition, it did not requires referrals to other doctors or hospitals willing to perform the procedure. It made it so that doctors could simply refuse treatment and potentially not even mention all options available.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=98467651

So there is a lot more to this than merely the concept of a conscience rule.

I feel that it is wrong for someone to refuse a vital service because of a moral obligation. It's not their place to judge or try to force their believe on someone else. Here in Utah, we've had several pharmacists refuse to sell pregnancy tests, morning after bills, or birth control to teenagers. It just seems wrong to me that these people would claim a moral crisis when these customers will be out of their lives in mere moments.

Allow me to make a dumb comparison: that's like a deli shop owner refusing to sell to Jews because they might have something bad to say about pork.

However, I do also feel some irritation towards these folks who get turned down by those on their moral high horse. If one doctor refuses or one pharmacist denies you something, simply go to the next one. There would be plenty of others willing to help, so I don't see why people would be so distraught over one arrogant or judgmental professional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

However, I do also feel some irritation towards these folks who get turned down by those on their moral high horse. If one doctor refuses or one pharmacist denies you something, simply go to the next one. There would be plenty of others willing to help, so I don't see why people would be so distraught over one arrogant or judgmental professional.

---

You are a very young teenage girl.

You have had non-consensual sex (or been coerced into sex) with a forceful older male, say 18, who, during the already traumatic experience, refused to use condoms. You don't have the benefit of sex education, or really much education at all.

You don't know any doctors except your own.

You are too ashamed and scared to approach any old pharmacist in any old drugstore.

And your doctor refuses you the morning after pill.

Now tell me why you shouldn't be "so distraught".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

You are a very young teenage girl.

You have had non-consensual sex (or been coerced into sex) with a forceful older male, say 18, who, during the already traumatic experience, refused to use condoms. You don't have the benefit of sex education, or really much education at all.

You don't know any doctors except your own.

You are too ashamed and scared to approach any old pharmacist in any old drugstore.

And your doctor refuses you the morning after pill.

Now tell me why you shouldn't be "so distraught".

---

Tell me how being shot down by one doctor means carrying a child to term and giving birth. Yes, it might be traumatic and life altering... does that mean it's okay to ignore the problem and hope for the best? If your doctor would refuse giving you the pill, then you should swallow your pride and go to the pharmacy. Or better yet, go to a free clinic and get tested as well as grabbing a pill. I don't believe there are many woman over age thirteen that don't know about free clinics, women shelters, hot lines or websites that are focused on helping them with this particular problem.

What you've just describe happens to more women then we'll ever know because of confidentiality and women who refuse to talk about such a horrible affair. I know this sounds harsh and I wish I could put it in a better light, but being a victim/playing one doesn't mean you avoid getting the help you need.

I hate to be so brief, but I don't have a lot of time and my question will pretty much some up the way I feel about this.

Who can't find another doctor? I mean, there are doctors everywhere. This isn't 1850 where you have to go 100 miles to find a new doctor. I do think that it is ridiculous for insurance companies to have the right to discriminate, and that that provision should be rolled back, but I think individual doctors (and, to a lesser extent, hospitals) shouldn't be forced to do things they find morally wrong. I actually didn't know that previous to recently they had to.

Actually, in many rural areas, it's entirely conceivable that there might be only one doctor or pharmacy for a large area. Or only a few, and if it's a strongly conservative area, all of them could easily be unwilling to provide the needed service. Some people aren't able to go roaming from town to town looking for a pharmacy that will sell them the morning after pill or what-have-you.

EDIT: For instance, I'd really really hate to be a woman in Bumfuck, Idaho or Bumfuck, Kansas or someplace like that trying to find a pharmacist who would sell me emergency contraception in time. We could easily be talking about driving around for hours and hours. Not to mention, if I did manage to find one, having to potentially drive a couple hours every time I needed my birth control prescription filled. And if Bumfuck, Idaho would be bad, how about Bumfuck, Alaska?

If they're working in private industries, I'm confused as to how government can force them to do anything

edit: although I suppose since doctors have a monopoly over supplying drugs, they ought to cater to everyone

And like I said, if you're young, uneducated, afraid and ashamed, it's not so simple to just Get Over It and go find another doctor or pharmacist. To ignore the mental duress that some of these young people endure is idiotic and insensitive.

The factors that cause this mental duress (namely religious education, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases) are also abhorrent, but that's another discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

If they're working in private industries, I'm confused as to how government can force them to do anything

---

yes but you're a goddamn rights-loving libertarian fucker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

yes but you're a goddamn rights-loving libertarian fucker

---

well i did edit my post you cuntbag

(but yes i suppose i am)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

yes but you're a goddamn rights-loving libertarian fucker

---

Rights are awesome, though. I am all for the rights of private industry, which is why I think they should have the right to not do what they don't want to do.

I realize the dilemma of 'what if someone lives in the middle of nowhere', but at the same time you have to take into account that (generally) this isn't going to be an every day thing. Emergency contraception is for emergencies, which, by definition, aren't what usually happen.

I mean, in the scenario you described gwahir, someone who is poorly educated may not know what to do and may be in trouble, but I don't think we should write policy to the lowest common denominator. I think it is safe to say that, in common scenarios, someone who really needs contraception will know how to get it, do whatever they have to do to get it, and then get it. Bad things are going to happen, but I don't think it is worth alienating an entire group of people in an integral industry just for a few obscure 'but what ifs'. I mean, seriously, how many fundamentalist christian doctors can there be?

I'm going to make a thread about rights theory and show all you punk ass rights theorists what's what

I'm only using rights to mean 'freedoms positively enshrined in law'. I don't actually think natural rights exist.

I eagerly anticipate your thread, and hope we get to speak of the economic implications of personal property rights.

EDIT: I am speaking of rights in the same terms as benzs, though I do think there are a few natural rights.

I'm just curious... had no one read my post in which I described how the law was written such that insurance companies could outright deny or even simply not inform their clients any medical procedure that was deemed unconscionable?

I mentioned my opposition to the insurance portion (and to a lesser extent the hospital portion) of Bush's policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Rights are awesome, though. I am all for the rights of private industry, which is why I think they should have the right to not do what they don't want to do.

I realize the dilemma of 'what if someone lives in the middle of nowhere', but at the same time you have to take into account that (generally) this isn't going to be an every day thing. Emergency contraception is for emergencies, which, by definition, aren't what usually happen.

I mean, in the scenario you described gwahir, someone who is poorly educated may not know what to do and may be in trouble, but I don't think we should write policy to the lowest common denominator. I think it is safe to say that, in common scenarios, someone who really needs contraception will know how to get it, do whatever they have to do to get it, and then get it. Bad things are going to happen, but I don't think it is worth alienating an entire group of people in an integral industry just for a few obscure 'but what ifs'. I mean, seriously, how many fundamentalist christian doctors can there be?

---

The doctor's group in the OP article has 15,000 members. I realize it's a small fraction of the total number of healthcare workers in the US, but this is still a serious issue, especially since this kind of doctor is probably heavily represented in areas where doctors are few and far between. Besides: If there's not that many, then we shouldn't be worried about "alienating an entire group of people", should we? And of course emergencies "aren't what usually happen"; that's practically tautological. So what?

I see what you are saying, there was a logic hole in the way I stated things. Let me try to fix it.

I did mention that emergencies were not common by definition, I meant it more as a point of clarification than tautology.

I don't think that anyone should be alienated for their beliefs, no matter what position they hold or what they believe. Of course, there are logical exceptions to this where one person's beliefs intrude on the rights of others, but, seeing as there there is always another doctor somewhere, some doctors not doing some things doesn't take away the ability of someone to get treatment, it just makes it a little more inconvenient. I think someone having to drive an extra hundred miles is much less of a hit to universal fairness than making doctors do something that they don't think is right.

I think you are severely underestimating the amount of difficulty that is caused for a young person or a poor person who has to travel a hundred miles to get a prescription filled, especially if time is a crucial factor (as it is with emergency contraception). Even then, you are assuming that even if one doctor/pharmacist/etc. refuses to provide service, the patient will automatically know where to go to find someone who won't refuse. One of the things that the "conscience clause" allows health care workers to do is refuse to provide a referral someone who will perform the service. It's not like a patient who is refused service can necessarily just say "Okay fine, I'll just drive over to Dr. Smith in Springville, he'll do it." They may well not have any idea which other doctors/pharmacists/etc. would be willing to provide service, and in a rural area (which tend to be conservative), it's quite likely that they could have a very hard time finding one even if they do spend all day driving around for hours going to all the area's various far-flung pharmacies or doctor's offices or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I think you are severely underestimating the amount of difficulty that is caused for a young person or a poor person who has to travel a hundred miles to get a prescription filled, especially if time is a crucial factor (as it is with emergency contraception). Even then, you are assuming that even if one doctor/pharmacist/etc. refuses to provide service, the patient will automatically know where to go to find someone who won't refuse. One of the things that the "conscience clause" allows health care workers to do is refuse to provide a referral someone who will perform the service. It's not like a patient who is refused service can necessarily just say "Okay fine, I'll just drive over to Dr. Smith in Springville, he'll do it." They may well not have any idea which other doctors/pharmacists/etc. would be willing to provide service, and in a rural area (which tend to be conservative), it's quite likely that they could have a very hard time finding one even if they do spend all day driving around for hours going to all the area's various far-flung pharmacies or doctor's offices or whatever.

---

I was not aware of the referral refusal section of the conscience clause. I think that should be abolished. In fact, I think that referral to someone who will should be mandatory. That seems like a fair compromise that allows doctors to keep their personal integrity while also not inhibiting the rights of those who need the services they won't give.

I will admit I am kind of baffled by the notion that someone wouldn't be able to find another doctor. There are phone books and phones to call around to find what you need. If I recall correctly, I think you have 24 hours after sex before the morning-after pill is no longer effective. I think that gives people plenty of time to make proper arrangements. Of course, there is the issue that people may be too poor or dumb to do these things, but as I stated before I am not of the belief that policy should cater to the lowest common denominator at the expense of someone else.

This isn't the government forcing someone to provide a service. Although the medical system is much like a business here in the US, there are very strict legal requirements that go about it. Not only do you need to have a doctorate, but you need to pass the medical exam to get your license, same way with lawyers needing to pass the bar exam. This isn't a computer shop, or a car rental store, or a bakery, or a lawn service.

You are taking an OATH and being given a license to practice medicine, the standards HAVE to be the same no matter what. If you feel that it violates your faith to be in the industry, then you are free to pursue another career. Just like the people who inject the chemicals for lethal injection, if you are morally against that practice, no one is making you partake in that job.

The point is not being able to find another doctor, obviously that is very possible, but as sycld stated, you are also getting the insurance companies involved. So what if your insurance company suddenly morally disapproves of a procedure, and won't cover it? Personal doctor morality needs to stay out of the equation, there are already strict standards set for doctors.

Well, if you had read everything I said you would know that I have already addressed your last paragraph. I don't think people should be denied the opportunity to help people through medicine just because they are find issue in one or two procedures. Contraception is rarely necessary to protect life, and therefore refusing to administer it is not contrary to the Hippocratic oath. Of course doctors shouldn't be allowed to refuse abortions if the mother will die without one, but beyond that I don't see any other contradictions. There is a huge difference between being a doctor who disagrees with contraception and being a euthanizer who disagrees with euthanasia. That is just a silly comparison.

I think the conscience clause can be fixed, and I have outlined how I believe it can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I was not aware of the referral refusal section of the conscience clause.

---

which again I mentioned in my post :mad:

Anyway, the primary consideration here must be that the patient in all cases has access to all legal procedures and medicines that he or she is allowed. The ability for an individual doctor or pharmacist to refuse to perform a certain procedure or dispense a certain medicine should be a secondary concern, period. As MrTroy rightly stated, these are highly regulated professions for good reason; we're not talking about electronics repair people here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

which again I mentioned in my post :mad:

---

Heh, missed that part. I read first two paragraphs then made a post because of them, then forgot to go back and read the rest.

Also, you posted your message when I was typing mine, so I did not see your last paragraph, because your post didn't exist when I was typing mine.

No worries.

I'll also add that regardless of the contents of the Hippocratic oath, people have a legal right to access to all legal, approved medical procedures. This right should first and foremost be preserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

No worries.

I'll also add that regardless of the contents of the Hippocratic oath, people have a legal right to access to all legal, approved medical procedures. This right should first and foremost be preserved.

---

Why is the legal right to all legal medicine and procedures more important than the right to your personal beliefs in cases not involving mortality?

Barring emergencies, doctors should be able to choose what procedures they perform. Just as their employers should be able to fire them for not doing their job if they so choose, and patients able to sue them.

I think it's a slippery slope when we start telling people they're free from scrutiny or recourse if they just claim a moral imperative.

Edit: I'd like to add the stipulation that doctors who refuse services based on this provide referral to someone who will do them. Declining on moral grounds is fine by me, so long as it's an act of their conscious and not an act of imposing their views on others.

I'd also to say than any idiot refusing to sell condoms et al should receive no protection whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Why is the legal right to all legal medicine and procedures more important than the right to your personal beliefs in cases not involving mortality?

---

Are drugs available by other means? i.e. without a doctor's prescription

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Actually, in many rural areas, it's entirely conceivable that there might be only one doctor or pharmacy for a large area. Or only a few, and if it's a strongly conservative area, all of them could easily be unwilling to provide the needed service.

---

This is a myth.

A doctor has no choice but to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger (and a prior arrangement has not been made) under "do no harm." In this case, morality doesn't have an effect.

What you want to do is allow a patient to force a doctor to perform an elective procedure. This is no different than a doctor declining to perform plastic surgery. You do not have a right to have an abortion, nor should you have the right to compel anyone to give you one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Are drugs available by other means? i.e. without a doctor's prescription

---

No, but there are other doctors, and if they revise in a mandatory referral clause it will be easy to find them too.

You guys are talking like every doctor is going to refuse to give contraception. They are in the vast minority. Personally, I think anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body, but not at the expense of the rights of anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

No worries.

I'll also add that regardless of the contents of the Hippocratic oath, people have a legal right to access to all legal, approved medical procedures. This right should first and foremost be preserved.

---

NO THE FUCK THEY DO NOT.

You cannot name a single goddamned country where this is the case because it is fucking retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

No, but there are other doctors, and if they revise in a mandatory referral clause it will be easy to find them too.

You guys are talking like every doctor is going to refuse to give contraception. They are in the vast minority. Personally, I think anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body, but not at the expense of the rights of anyone else.

---

Well, I'd agree with this, but essentially doctors monopolise the distribution of drugs, such as the morning after pill. Refusing a prescription surely is an imposition of the doctor's will over your own; you don't want his skills or expertise (such as when it comes to performing abortions), just his signature so you can get a drug that isn't otherwise available.

I grant you that going to another doctor is a possibility, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of blocking one person's wish to have access to a drug merely because the intermediary - the doctor - has moral views in opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Well, I'd agree with this, but essentially doctors monopolise the distribution of drugs, such as the morning after pill. Refusing a prescription surely is an imposition of the doctor's will over your own; you don't want his skills or expertise (such as when it comes to performing abortions), just his signature so you can get a drug that isn't otherwise available.

I grant you that going to another doctor is a possibility, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of blocking one person's wish to have access to a drug merely because the intermediary - the doctor - has moral views in opposition.

---

The thing is though that they aren't blocked, just temporarily inconvenienced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

The thing is though that they aren't blocked, just temporarily inconvenienced.

---

You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

NO THE FUCK THEY DO NOT.

You cannot name a single goddamned country where this is the case because it is fucking retarded.

---

I'll conceded that my statement was way too comprehensive, and I was too careless in wording it. I did not intend to really say any and all legal medical procedures, including elective cosmetic surgeries, could not be refused.

However, abortions and emergency contraceptives are not elective in exactly the same sense as plastic surgeries. You cannot make this simple binary distinction between procedures that remedy life-threatening illnesses and procedures that are purely elective. I'm not just talking out of my ass here; this question is one of legal debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

---

If a mandatory referral clause were added, it their doctor wouldn't give someone a medication they would have to tell you who would, then you could just go to that doctor to get it. It would be an inconvenience for the patient, but not a massive one and certainly not one greater than impugning the personal integrity of the doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

---

At the end of the day, nothing prevents them from getting it; they just go to a different doctor.

You're basically arguing a theoretical principle that has no practical application because it's not a real-world issue. It amounts to a politician trying to regulate morality just the same as when conservative Christians try to have their morals enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

At the end of the day, nothing prevents them from getting it; they just go to a different doctor.

You're basically arguing a theoretical principle that has no practical application because it's not a real-world issue. It amounts to a politician trying to regulate morality just the same as when conservative Christians try to have their morals enforced.

---

I'm not really arguing one way or another, I'm just advocating the patient having a choice. And since the doctor is the only choice available, I'm not comfortable with a doctor blocking a patient's wishes on a whim.

But yes if it's feasible that another doctor will offer a 'better' service, then it's no big deal, but I'm not familiar enough with the distribution of doctors in the US to really have an opinion.

The similar argument in the UK is that people who smoke/drink heavily/whatever should be denied NHS treatment. And my argument against that is that there is no second option available because government has socialised the entire industry, so denying the service is simply trampling all over that person's freedoms. Turns out in this thread's instance, there IS a second choice, it just might not be the easiest option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

This is a myth.

A doctor has no choice but to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger (and a prior arrangement has not been made) under "do no harm." In this case, morality doesn't have an effect.

What you want to do is allow a patient to force a doctor to perform an elective procedure. This is no different than a doctor declining to perform plastic surgery. You do not have a right to have an abortion, nor should you have the right to compel anyone to give you one.

---

Aren't abortions performed by specialists, with specialized equipment and training? I was under the impression that abortionists are specialized OB/GYNs who are employed at abortion clinics, and that if you go in to your local GP and want an abortion, they are generally going to be unable to perform one even if they wanted to. The only doctors who would have the skills and equipment to perform an abortion in the first place would be those who are working in abortion clinics (and thus obviously don't need to be "forced" to provide abortions). Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's my understanding. So, if this understanding is correct, rolling back the "conscience clause" would in no way put doctors into a position of being forced to perform abortions against their will.

Also, can you cite a source on doctors having no choice but to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger? This makes me raise an eyebrow.

FYI, abortions are performed by normal hospital rotation doctors with at least some regularity. "Abortionists" (I hate this word) would, as far as I know, refer to doctors in abortion clinics, whose only role is to perform abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ephekt

FYI, abortions are performed by normal hospital rotation doctors with at least some regularity. "Abortionists" (I hate this word) would, as far as I know, refer to doctors in abortion clinics, whose only role is to perform abortions.

---

Ahh, I stand corrected on that point.

However, I've been reading more on this issue, and I just found the actual content of the regulation that Obama is rolling back. My description in the OP is actually poorly worded. Here's what Bush's last-minute regulation actually does:

"The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways."

From the Washington Post's article on the regulation when it was introduced in January, here

So here's the deal: Before Bush added this regulation, doctors/pharmacists/nurses/etc. could refuse to provide a service on the ground of conscience, BUT if they did so, they might be punished or fired by their employer. E.g., if you work at a pharmacy and refuse to give someone their birth control pills, the owner/manager of the pharmacy could fire you for refusing to do your job. Or if a doctor at a hospital refused to provide an abortion even though the hospital's policy is that they will provide abortions, the hospital management could fire him for it. What Bush's new regulation did was prohibit businesses from disciplining or terminating their own employees for refusing to provide a service that is part of the job they were hired to do. It said that health care employees could refuse to do their job, on the grounds of moral objection, without fear of being fired for it. And it's this regulation that the Obama administration has now undone.

So, bottom line, in no way does this force anyone to provide an abortion, or even to fill a birth control pill prescription. It just means that if they refuse to do so, it's not illegal for their employer to fire them for it. Sorry about the shitty explanation in the OP, everyone. That's what I get for not doing enough research before posting a thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Why is the legal right to all legal medicine and procedures more important than the right to your personal beliefs in cases not involving mortality?

---

Because they are DOCTORS, not independent service providers, like a massage therapist (in a state that holds no laws or credentials necessary to practice). Health care is a highly regulated field, just like law, or professional engineering. If your FAITH gets in the way of the legal rights of patients, you are free to not practice medicine. It comes with the medical license. All legal treatments should be available. If you disagree with them too bad. Do not practice medicine. If/When I get married, I want to trust that my doctor gives us all the options available for any pregnancy issues that come up, if they do, and not just the ones he personally feels right doing (not just abortion, ANYTHING, like assisted pregnancy). That is not for him/her to decide. If he has a problem performing those duties, then quit.

This doesn't work elsewhere, a firefighter couldn't say "nah, I'm not going to put out this fire because the owner is an atheist", or a police officer can't choose to not-enforce domestic abuse laws because his religion says it's ok to beat women. If your faith or personal beliefs interferes with your DUTIES, then do not perform that career.

Mr Troy is right. You don't get many vegetarians working in slaughter houses. That doesn't mean they couldn't work in slaughter houses, just that if they do then they'll have to bend their beliefs because that's what their job is.

If you don't want to do certain medical procedures then do not enter the medical profession. Simple as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Because they are DOCTORS, not independent service providers, like a massage therapist (in a state that holds no laws or credentials necessary to practice). Health care is a highly regulated field, just like law, or professional engineering. If your FAITH gets in the way of the legal rights of patients, you are free to not practice medicine. It comes with the medical license. All legal treatments should be available. If you disagree with them too bad. Do not practice medicine. If/When I get married, I want to trust that my doctor gives us all the options available for any pregnancy issues that come up, if they do, and not just the ones he personal feels right doing. That is not for him/her to decide. If he has a problem performing those duties, then quit.

---

Here's a particularly scary effect of the "conscience clause": When a woman is raped, one thing she should do ASAP is go to the hospital, where she will be treated with something called a rape kit, or sexual assault evidence collection kit. This is basically a collection of equipment that a caregiver (usually a nurse) can use to collect any biological evidence that may be useful in catching/prosecuting the rapist; it also includes various items that may be used to treat any injuries that the woman has sustained as a result of the attack. One thing that it often contains is emergency contraception drugs (morning-after pills), for obvious reasons. Under Bush's additions to the "conscience clause", a caregiver would be protected from punishment if the hospital employing that caregiver includes emergency contraceptive pills in their rape kits, but the caregiver decides not to give the rape victim the pill, or even tell the victim that the kit includes a pill at all and that they have the option of taking it.

Fuck. That.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simonj

Mr Troy is right. You don't get many vegetarians working in slaughter houses. That doesn't mean they couldn't work in slaughter houses, just that if they do then they'll have to bend their beliefs because that's what their job is.

If you don't want to do certain medical procedures then do not enter the medical profession. Simple as.

---

It's not as simple as that, either. It's one thing to object to medical procedures because of your conscience; it's another thing entirely to object to giving care because of your own inappropriate prejudices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Because they are DOCTORS, not independent service providers, like a massage therapist (in a state that holds no laws or credentials necessary to practice). Health care is a highly regulated field, just like law, or professional engineering. If your FAITH gets in the way of the legal rights of patients, you are free to not practice medicine. It comes with the medical license. All legal treatments should be available. If you disagree with them too bad. Do not practice medicine. If/When I get married, I want to trust that my doctor gives us all the options available for any pregnancy issues that come up, if they do, and not just the ones he personally feels right doing (not just abortion, ANYTHING, like assisted pregnancy). That is not for him/her to decide. If he has a problem performing those duties, then quit.

This doesn't work elsewhere, a firefighter couldn't say "nah, I'm not going to put out this fire because the owner is an atheist", or a police officer can't choose to not-enforce domestic abuse laws because his religion says it's ok to beat women. If your faith or personal beliefs interferes with your DUTIES, then do not perform that career.

---

These are elective procedures.

You're substituting your morality for the doctor's; you're trying to compel him to do something he doesn't want to do or believe is right. There are other doctors who would be more than happy to make a few bucks to perform the elective procedure; if I don't agree with it, let the patient find one of them.

Abortions are rarely more elective than boob jobs. The obvious exception here is rape/incest, in which case the law needs to protect victims first. Unfortunately, the majority of abortions aren't intended to protect a victim as much as they are intended to protect an irresponsible behavior.

This situation is not in any way different than a group of Christian conservatives trying to pass into law their code of morality. All you've done is spun it under the guise of progressiveness and undermined the doctor's rights to be benefit of no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

These are elective procedures.

You're substituting your morality for the doctor's; you're trying to compel him to do something he doesn't want to do or believe is right. There are other doctors who would be more than happy to make a few bucks to perform the elective procedure; if I don't agree with it, let the patient find one of them.

Abortions are rarely more elective than boob jobs. The obvious exception here is rape/incest, in which case the law needs to protect victims first. Unfortunately, the majority of abortions aren't intended to protect a victim as much as they are intended to protect an irresponsible behavior.

This situation is not in any way different than a group of Christian conservatives trying to pass into law their code of morality. All you've done is spun it under the guise of progressiveness and undermined the doctor's rights to be benefit of no one.

---

If the doctor does not want to perform legal procedures in his field, then he should not be practicing medicine. My general practitioner is not a surgeon or able to perform abortions. If you are against abortion, then do not practice medicine in a situation where you would be asked to perform an abortion, or to recommend a doctor or place to go that would if you are not qualified to do it yourself. There are distinct specialties in the medical field, not everyone can perform open heart surgery. If you do not believe god would want you to join sperm & egg in a lab and put them in a woman, then by all means do not practice medicine. Doctors have no right to subject there restrictive religious code on patients. You took an oath and got a license to practice medicine. That's what practicing medicine is, not "pick and choose".

If you are an electrician, you can't pick and choose which codes to meet or not. If your work does not meet the code, then you will no longer be a certified electrician. You can't do things "your way" just because you want to in these types of fields like law and medicine. If your personal beliefs get in the way, then you are in the wrong field... you need to fit the industry, the industry should not mangle itself to meet your beliefs. Do you think meat packing plants would change their operations if a few vegetarians joined the staff? No, of course not... if the vegetarian does not like what comes with that position, then leave.

MrTroy, even though my sympathies are with your side of the argument... where is it written, anywhere at all, that a doctor must be willing to perform any and all medical procedures? Does it say so in any of the legislation that regulates the medical profession, or in any other laws for that matter? Does it say so in the Hippocratic Oath or anything like that? Does it say so on their license to practice medicine, or on their med school diploma? If not, your comparison to electricians refusing to follow code (for instance) is invalid.

Also, prompted by what ephekt said, I've been reading up on who exactly performs abortions. Ephekt was right; it's not just specialists, and doctors who specifically specialize in abortions and work at abortion clinics aren't the only ones who may be asked to perform one. A woman might well walk into the office of her regular doctor and ask him to perform an abortion. So it's not really accurate to compare it to open-heart surgery or other procedures that are ONLY performed by specialists who have chosen to perform that kind of work.

I think I've said everything I care to say in this thread, so I'm just going to wrap up my involvement by saying that, in this case, I agree with Atmosfear, and that Syme has a good rebuttal to MrTroy, and I respect him even more now because he was able to be contrary to someone who was on his side but doing it wrong. I also think that the conscience clause is flawed, but I don't think it is beyond repair. With a few simple provisions a resolution could be made that would make everyone (except for people on the extremes of either side) happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

These are elective procedures.

...

Abortions are rarely more elective than boob jobs. The obvious exception here is rape/incest, in which case the law needs to protect victims first. Unfortunately, the majority of abortions aren't intended to protect a victim as much as they are intended to protect an irresponsible behavior.

---

Since you seem to be unable to read regular size text, again:

THIS IS YOUR OWN FUCKING OPINION THAT YOU ARE SUBSTITUTING FOR FACT,
it is a matter of legal and medical debate, and you are coming out of left field now by adding that in the case of rape or incest abortion is suddenly less of an "elective procedure" than it would be otherwise.

Yes, if someone was deformed in an auto accident or due to a birth defect such as cleft palette, then it is obvious that the plastic surgery neccesary to correct these deformities would not be merely elective since their features are grossly far from normal, and the plastic surgery would be an attempt to bring their features closer to normal so that they can function normally or not be ashamed of their appearance in public. There is a definite and obvious physiological distinction to be made between the condition of the person needing non-elective sugery and the condition of person with features clearly in the range of what's considered normal that just wants to look prettier.

However, whether the child was concieved in a consensual sex act or by rape, there is no difference in the physiological condition of the pregnant woman. The act of abortion would still be just as elective (or non-elective) in either case because the initial physiological conditions are indistinguishable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

MrTroy, even though my sympathies are with your side of the argument... where is it written, anywhere at all, that a doctor must be willing to perform any and all medical procedures? Does it say so in any of the legislation that regulates the medical profession, or in any other laws for that matter? Does it say so in the Hippocratic Oath or anything like that? Does it say so on their license to practice medicine, or on their med school diploma? If not, your comparison to electricians refusing to follow code (for instance) is invalid.

---

MrTroy is making the same error in his argument that I made earlier. Doctors don't have to make available every legal medical procedure. They must make available every non-elective , "neccesary" medical proedure. The argument is then one of whether abortion is a neccesary medical procedure or not.

It is obvious that some medical procedures which merely but profoundly affect quality of life are considered non-elective, such as the correction of non-life-threatening but abnormal facial defects or the prevention or correction of conditions that threaten hearing and sight. So should abortion be considered non-elective? Plan B? Contraception? That is not so clear and is hardly a moot point.