…and this is a 
I don't want to be healed by Jesus, I want real medicine
Category: Politics
Posted on: September 23, 2008 1:33 PM, by PZ Myers
We have a new euphemism and a potential new regulation from the Bush administration: "provider conscience rights". What this is about is providing religious doctors with loopholes so that they can avoid responsibility for treating patients with the best possible care — so they can use religious excuses to justify neglect. You can read the press release, Regulation Proposed to Help Protect Health Care Providers from Discrimination, and of course the odious Mike Leavitt has mentioned it. This is a proposed new rule that if, for instance, a doctor with superstitious scruples is treating a rape victim, he would not only be allowed to refuse her emergency contraception, he wouldn't even be required to refer her to someone who could give it to her, or even mention that the option existed. Apparently, the ignorant dogma of the health care provider supersedes the right of the patient to informed consent and appropriate care.
This is open for commentary for the next few days. Again, I notice the web page has a bizarrely twisted title: "Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law". Now asking that doctors behave ethically with respect for the rights of the patient is now "coercive". Who cares about the patient, though? Isn't medicine all about the doctor imposing his or her will, right down to his arbitrary beliefs about deities, on the patient?
Lois Uttley, a well-known defender of patient rights, has spelled out a few general principles which are being defied by this new regulation. Maybe you could use some of these when expressing your objections.
Principles of a Progressive Response:
- The welfare of the patient must be at the center of medical decision-making and treatment.
- The religious/moral beliefs of a caregiver or religious doctrine of a health care institution cannot be allowed to obstruct a patient's access to care.
- Patients must be able to make treatment decisions based on accurate medical information and their own ethical or religious beliefs.
Protecting Patients' Rights: Five Key Principles
- A patient's right to informed consent must be paramount. No information may be withheld.
- Health care institutions must provide emergency care immediately, without exception.
- For non-emergency care, referrals must be made if treatment is refused.
- The ability of non-objecting health practitioners to serve their patients must be safeguarded. No physician "gag rules" should be allowed.
- Institutional treatment restrictions must be disclosed to patients in advance.
Get out there and speak out for your right to not be bound by your doctor's freaky religion. This is especially important for women, since anything to do with reproduction seems most likely to induce gibbering meltdowns among the religious right — and they're going to use their delusions to deny you good healthcare.
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Kobra | September 23, 2008 1:39 PM
Some days I like to think I'm living in a badly-written Disney movie with the religious people trying to destroy humanity and the atheists struggling to hold this country together.
Posted by: Uncephalized | September 23, 2008 1:40 PM
Hear, hear!
I'm sick of doctors who think their delusions are more important than their patients' health. If you get into medicine, you'd damn well be ready to provide the necessary care at the appropriate time. Doctors should have their licenses stripped for malpractice if they allow someone to die when they could have been saved, due to their own fucked up beliefs.
Posted by: Daniel Sprockett | September 23, 2008 1:44 PM
This is absolutely terrifying. When did The Hippocratic Oath become the ten commandments?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 23, 2008 1:45 PM
Kobra:
Does this mean we'll have to break out into song?
Posted by: Rev.Enki | September 23, 2008 1:45 PM
Doesn't informed consent imply that the patient was actually *informed* of all the relevant, reasonable, and legal treatment options before they gave their *consent* to receive, or not receive, a particular treatment?
If they aren't fully informed of their options, then it isn't *informed* consent. This legislation is (functionally, if not intentionally) an effort to turn the entire idea of informed consent on it's goddamned ear.
Posted by: Holbach | September 23, 2008 1:45 PM
I'd like to place my hands around a religious moron's head and yell out, "Heal, you heel".
Posted by: phein | September 23, 2008 1:46 PM
OT, but there's poll on Sarah Palin's fitness for the office at PBS, and the Republican's are organizing a response that currently has her at %50:
http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/poll/poll.pl
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 23, 2008 1:46 PM
*sigh*
one of those moments I wish I weren't merely an "alien" and actually had a say in the things going on around here. I think I'm gonna have to get the boyfriend to deal with this.
Posted by: Kobra | September 23, 2008 1:47 PM
#4: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qd9zVsWm4oA
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | September 23, 2008 1:49 PM
Those who vote for this better make sure that their doctors are not Jehova's Witnesses or something like that. They may need a transfusion some day and the doctor wouldn't have any obligation of even telling them about it.
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 1:49 PM
Every physician I go to in Baton Rouge is either an atheist or ignostic (not a typo). If I can find them in Baton Rouge, you can find them anywhere in the country... I still think these rules are completely bogus. Patients matter, if you are in the field of medicine and are not willing to do what is best for the patient in the eyes of the patient, then you should not be in that field. Same goes with the pharmacies. In situations an individual feels as an emergency which should be taken care of, it doesn't matter what the physician feels about it. It's how the patient feels about it that matters.
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2008 1:50 PM
Something quasi-related in which the Catholic Church objects to wording that will force "conscientious objectors" to refer patients to other doctors if the necessary medical procedure may include abortion.
They are not being forced to perform abortions, mind you. Only, if they have a problem with it, they have to refer the case to a doctor that isn't a conscientious objector and will then not be performing malpractice by refusing to discuss all relevant medical practices.
Kind of like many pharmacy's have conscientious objector policy with the pharmacists. In this case, the other pharmacist dispenses the pill, preserving the medieval morality of the backward pharmacist.
My personal opinion is that it is malpractice and the doctor/pharmacist that refuses should be on the hook for child support/damages/etc. If you're going to take a "high and mighty principled stance," you need to fully experience the consequences.
Posted by: Kyoseki | September 23, 2008 1:51 PM
Oh yeah, great idea, let's allow doctors to avoid providing healthcare for STDs because they might deem them God's wrath upon the immoral.
I'm sorry, but this is fucking retarded, if you're not going to do your very best to aid your patient because of your own prejudices then by all means, feel free to pursue another line of work.
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2008 1:53 PM
Dude, that was painful...
Posted by: Mr.Pendent | September 23, 2008 1:55 PM
Today is not a good day. I commented, for all the good it will do.
And Jadehawk, speaking as a natural citizen, let me say that being one doesn't help much.
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 1:56 PM
Kobra @9
awesome song!
Posted by: silence | September 23, 2008 1:59 PM
($DEITY) forbid this actually passes.
As written, I get the impression that somebody could decide that he is really a Christian Science faith healer, and let people who walk into the ER with heart attacks die while he prays over them, and be completely protected.
This is not a good policy.
Posted by: Danio | September 23, 2008 2:00 PM
Jared, isn't the population of Baton Rouge something like 750,000? I think you may be overestimating the diversity, and resulting limits on choosing a provider, in towns that are 10 to 100 fold smaller than yours. Women in small communities with homogenous religious ideologies have always had a difficult time getting access to the full menu of reproductive health care. This legislation will compound that difficulty significantly, and allow it to pervade larger communities in certain parts of the country, as well.
(PS, PZ we had some spirited discussions on this topic during your vacation.)
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 2:01 PM
Well, yes, Moses, it could have been better sung and slightly better lyrics, but it is one of the first like that I've heard...
Posted by: Richard | September 23, 2008 2:02 PM
Medical care should not be the product of a dictatorship lorded over by a capricious and arbitrary physician. Medical care is customer-service oriented -- the desire of the patient is what matters.
Posted by: Ames | September 23, 2008 2:06 PM
#18 (Danio) is to thank, indeed, for some very spirited discussions on the subject, and she's owed major kudos for bringing this thing to the forefront of such a large audience.
I've listed my own comment, the one I e-mailed to them, here. While HHS says that they "discourage duplicate comments," if anyone wanted to just copy & paste my comment into an email to "consciencecomment@hhs.gov," I wouldn't object. If you want to send a comment, then, but don't really know what to write, please feel free to use mine linked above, or modify it to claim it as your own. What's most important is just that HHS hears the outcry from the likes of you and I.
Posted by: chris | September 23, 2008 2:06 PM
PBS Poll on "the Blessed" Sarah Palin:
Please consider doing this. It takes less than 30 seconds. PBS NOW is running a poll which asks if Palin is qualified to be VP. The right wing has organized a "yes" campaign and at the moment, "yes" is winning.
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
Posted by: MikeinJapan | September 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Boy are they going to be surprised the first time they visit a Jewish or Muslim doctor when they get food poisoning from undercooked pork chops.. whoops.
"Sorry I can't help you. You ate unclean food, whattaya expect, sympathy?"
Posted by: Snark7 | September 23, 2008 2:07 PM
Thats soooo cool !So a doctor can just let anyone bleed to death and then claim to be a Jehovahs Whitness and transfusion is against his faith?
Posted by: Kobra | September 23, 2008 2:09 PM
#14: I didn't even watch it. I just googled "atheist song."
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 2:13 PM
Danio, the Greater Baton Rouge metro area encompasses a little over 4,000 square miles, population density of 515/sq mi. Yes, it's a fairly large city, but it is in the south. Also, I have a few in Opelousas, as well, from when I lived there; all except a good dentist: a cardiologist, general physician, poison specialist (I studied snakes, I needed this one), and emergency physician.
Posted by: Michael | September 23, 2008 2:15 PM
I was 12 years old and I had a paper route. While I was doing my job, a huge dog ripped away from the owners grasp, ran up to me and attacked me by biting me in the stomach.
My parents were not home at the time but I did manage to get a ride to the hospital. No doctor would see me, because I had no adult in my family to give permission. Yes, they clean and taped the wounds up, but I sat their for a good period of time waiting to see a doctor...Eventually, I did get a whole of one of my relatives who gave their permission and I was then treated by a doctor and given a shot.
Now if I was a girl who wanted an abortion, I would have been able to see a doctor right away or way sooner than I did with the dog wounds...
You call that the best health care possible? There I sat for a long, and nobody knew the health of the dog if it has some sort of disease like rabies. It seems that liberals in here tend to focus on politically correct medical treatment rather than practical treatment.
Posted by: LotharLoo | September 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Weird thought, but maybe we should import some bearded Muslim doctors. I bet these Christians too would feel uncomfortable when someone else tries to shove down another belief system down their throat. They are for this law because they know the law means "Christian law"; and know doesn't know Christians would jump at every opportunity to covert everything into a Christian wasteland.
Posted by: Donovan | September 23, 2008 2:16 PM
My letter to them:
I agree wholeheartedly that any person, regardless of their profession, not only
has the right but has the duty to put morality above regulations and even the law
itself. As thinking creatures, we absolutely should question the outcome of our
actions and refuse to do what we know is wrong. "I was following orders" is not
an excuse anymore.
But any person to follow such a route must do so with the willingness to defend
his or her decision to the highest courts in the world. Such a person must have a
rational and reasonable reason for the refusal. Any bill that effectively denies
people the obligation to do so is absurd. Personal responsibility is a cornerstone
of a nation of liberty.
I offer a simple guide: if decisions a physician must make are against your most
deeply held beliefs, find a different line of work. I refuse to support a practice that
denies my wife or my children proper care because of a whim. Such decisions
should go to court, and the decision should be made to stand to scrutiny.
I think I'll just sleep all the time I'm at work and claim my religion requires me to sleep when I feel "God's calling" to do so. I'll tell my boss where to stick it and tell him my religion requires it. Then I'll go down to the DoL and demand they pay me, since I was fired do to religious discrimination.
Posted by: Ooparts | September 23, 2008 2:19 PM
#27
The doctor was probably a dog worshipper and didn't want to remove your blessing.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | September 23, 2008 2:20 PM
The same people who brought you Ignorance-Only Sex Education are now bringing you Ignorance-Only Health Care.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 23, 2008 2:20 PM
Can the people who keep bringing up that PBS poll please calm down?
Posted by: Linz | September 23, 2008 2:23 PM
I still can't understand why there needs to be "provider conscience rights." If you hate medicine so much WHY ARE YOU A DOCTOR (pharmacist, etc.) This drives me up the wall. Argh!
Posted by: Danio | September 23, 2008 2:24 PM
You're mistaken if you think 12 year olds can get any kind of medical care--including abortions--without parental involvement in this country. Do your homework.
Posted by: abeja | September 23, 2008 2:26 PM
This is scary, obviously. But how does one ensure that his/her doctor isn't a religious nutter? When shopping for a new doc, what kinds of questions are appropriate to ask? I've seen tips on finding a new doc, usually they talk about the usual stuff--ask about experience, education, etc. But does anyone have any suggestions on how to make sure a new doc isn't going to deny me or my family the right to make our own choices based on his/her religious views?
And what about emergency situations? Dog forbid I end up in the ER under the circumstances of needing a rape exam or any other type of treatment that these morons could screw up with their delusions, but if something like that were to happen, how does one ensure that the doc will offer the right treatment options, when for many of us, the options that are available may not even be known beforehand?
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 2:31 PM
Haha, Michael @ 27, the dog bit you in the stomach? That's kind of funny, sorry. You were 12, assuming you are not a moron and did not run from the dog, it would probably bite a limb. In any event, you have 24 hours no matter what infection the animal may have. It also probably wasn't permission they were after, but a "how ya gonna pay for this" response. They wanted insurance, etc. On a further note, emergency rooms rarely do abortions unless it is the result of pregnancy complications and the woman's life is at risk. Specialty clinics usually do abortions. Also, the following errors were found in a brief review of your statements:
"owners" should be "owner's"
"a whole" instead of "a hold"
"clean" should be "cleaned"
"If I was" should be "If I were"
"for a long"? for a long (what)?
Also, as I stated previously, clinics deal with abortions, emergency rooms deal with trauma, they may deal with rape, emergency contraception, or abortion when the life of the woman is in danger..
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 2:33 PM
abeja @ 35, I blatantly ask if they adhere to any religious ideology that may interfere with any medical procedures I may or may not require.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | September 23, 2008 2:35 PM
A pox on this tyrannical system which insist on competence for their physicians. Making medical care based on evidence restricts the options patients have.
In fact, I am sure that all of those caring "doctors" dissected the bodies of humans. We all know that those bodies needed to be intact to that they may be resurrected by the lord for judgment day. How could those heartless "doctors" condemn all of those people.
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2008 2:35 PM
Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt. No twelve-year-old girl in America can get an abortion without adult consent or court order.
So to hell with your false equivalency, out-right lie and strawman attack.
Posted by: margish | September 23, 2008 2:37 PM
It is my sincere hope that , as much as I despise malpractice lawyers, they hop right up to sue these misogynist doctors with the "informed consent" principle as opposed to this bush-inspired insanity of letting the doctor decide, based upon his misogynist belief system that women must be controlled. As a woman I spit on these cretins who still adhere to the "women are evil and so must be controlled" meme. As a physician I disdain them for keeping these "second class persons" in their rightful, pregnant and barefoot status. One of many fantasies is a pregnant Pope Ratz or even one of the male ministers having a GOOD menstrual flow while he's preaching his trash. Sorry for this rant, but these bigots really piss me off. I first became an atheist because a perfect god could not be a women hater.
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 23, 2008 2:37 PM
Comparing Baton Rouge to Small-Town, Middle-of-Nowhere is disingenuous. I live in one of the bigger *coughcough* towns in North Dakota, and it's already difficult to get regular health-care (we have a hospital in town, but they're disturbingly BAD at their job); I drive 2 hours to Bismarck if I need to see a doctor, and even then, all I get is various flavors of very-very-Christian. I'm thinking if a law like that passed and I suspected that I might need an abortion or emergency contraception of any kind, I'd have to hop on the train to Minneapolis for it.
Posted by: faux mulder | September 23, 2008 2:38 PM
so, now we have to question any physician we come across regarding their particular religious beliefs, possible oddly interesting ethical notions, or whatever, before one can be sure they'd refuse to give a blood transfusion, or write us a prescription for holy water?
well, not everyone, thank goodness, i'm not american :-)
Posted by: Jared | September 23, 2008 2:41 PM
Jadehawk; North Dakota has the largest church per capita ratio of any state, doesn't it?
Posted by: abeja | September 23, 2008 2:41 PM
@37
Thanks, Jared. I guess I'll just have to be assertive (not my strong point)and do that. Then I'll have to hope they give a truthful answer...
Posted by: jp | September 23, 2008 2:42 PM
this is hilarious. talk about scenarios that are so far removed from reality. i'm sorry, but maybe i missed the point at which becoming a public servant requires the waiving of personal rights? and as a group that typically is in such vocal support of personal rights, i find the argument against this regulation disingenuous and plainly dishonest. and correct me if i'm wrong here, but i didn't see anything in this reg that precludes a comprehensive informed consent.
Posted by: NBHope | September 23, 2008 2:42 PM
You are deeply, morally committed to the belief that it would be wrong, even if perfectly legal, to sell assault-style rifles in your sporting goods store. It is, however, permissible. There are customers who request that you sell them these weapons. They're not sure what their alternatives are for dealing with the raccoons in their yard and they don't realize that there is a store just down the block where they can easily make this purchase. What are your moral obligations? What are our social obligations?
Posted by: Ranson | September 23, 2008 2:45 PM
My comment:
Posted by: Tulse | September 23, 2008 2:45 PM
I am ashamed to note that Ontario has a similar issue. I don't understand how not providing the best possible care, or at least referring for the best possible care, is not malpractice.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | September 23, 2008 2:46 PM
No one could ever be assured of any treatment ever again. Got a Jehovah's Witness nurse? Good luck getting a blood transfusion. Medication made from (or tested on) animals? My PETA-informed conscience prevents me from dispensing it to you. Why did I go into medicine at all if I'm a Christian Scientist? So I can watch you die, infidel.
Others have said it, but religion should cost the believer, not the rest of us. I defend everyone's right to go crazy in his or her own way--I have. But I don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab. This is obviously the most serious breach of that simple, fair principle, but I even think, hey, if you can't drive a Seeing Eye dog, you don't get to drive a taxi. If you can't sell ham, you don't get to work at the deli.
We can make reasonable accommodations for people's faith, where no one is substantially inconvenienced, but if someone's beliefs prevent them from doing a job, they have no expectation of holding that job. That is just insane.
Posted by: Sili | September 23, 2008 2:46 PM
Isn't it possible to add that GUTforsaken poll to the spamfilter? Stop people from being able to even post it? PLEASE?!
Yeah - sorry - I can't deal with the utterly ridiculous fascist stupidity of this 'regulation'. It almost makes me wish we had more nutters here so that I could yell at them in person. Almost.
Posted by: jp | September 23, 2008 2:47 PM
@#40 - "One of many fantasies is a pregnant Pope Ratz or even one of the male ministers having a GOOD menstrual flow while he's preaching his trash. Sorry for this rant, but these bigots really piss me off."
uh, wow, bigoted much? talk about the pot calling the kettle... two words - anger management.
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 23, 2008 2:47 PM
Jared, that sounds about right.
Posted by: Warren | September 23, 2008 2:49 PM
What I posted on the reply site:
==
From the press release regarding this proposed change:
'"This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."'
I cannot disagree more, or more strenuously. "According to conscience" is Trojan language that essentially means "according to religious belief". Despite propaganda to the contrary, the US is a secular nation. Science is an utterly secular pursuit. And medicine is science. Allowing a physician to object to a medical procedure on the basis of "conscience" is tantamount to allowing a biologist to reject the fact of evolution on the basis of personal discomfort.
This change is not an improvement. It's merely an opportunity for some healthcare providers to impose their personal moral beliefs on patients, essentially taking on the role of passing judgment without having to live with the consequences. A physician who does not believe a given procedure is morally acceptable might want to consider changing professions to something more appealing to his or her squeamish nature.
Posted by: writzer | September 23, 2008 2:50 PM
my comment:
So, how silly can this get?
- Baptist orthopedic surgeon refuses to set broken foot because injury was sustained while patient was dancing?
- Hindu doctor refuses to administer Heimlich manuever because food lodged in victim's windpipe is a piece of beef?
- Rapture-believing oncologist refuses to come up with a therapy plan because she expects to be swept up into heaven at any moment?
Oh, I know ... let's apply this idiotic thinking to other professions.
- An old-earth creationist lawyer won't represent a young-earth creationist doctor in a malpractice suit brought by the family of a gay man who died because the doctor disapproved of the man's lifestyle and refused to treat his burst appendix.
- A born-again insurance company executive refuses to underwrite a malpractice policy for a Catholic doctor because the doctor believes salvation is earned through works when the truly saved know it's given through God's grace.
- A white landlord refuses to rent property to a black family because she believes blacks are cursed by God.
Is there an expiration date on our government's bottle of silliness?
Posted by: Shap | September 23, 2008 2:53 PM
JP Said:
but maybe i missed the point at which becoming a public servant requires the waiving of personal rights?
I must have missed that, too, JP. Care to point out who made that claim?
Also, can I ask - do you believe in a patient's right to adequate medical care? Does a physician's 'personal rights' trump those?
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2008 2:54 PM
Stupid much? Being angry at bigots isn't bigotry. Two words: Mo ron.... ;)
Posted by: Alex | September 23, 2008 2:55 PM
"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."
I absolutely agree. Don't be a doctor then. Try dress making.
Morons.
Posted by: Rob J | September 23, 2008 2:58 PM
If medical professionals are going to make medical decisions based on superstition and dogma, it should be required for them to clearly advertise their religious beliefs to all potential clients.
Posted by: Alex | September 23, 2008 3:01 PM
"If medical professionals are going to make medical decisions based on superstition and dogma, it should be required for them to clearly advertise their religious beliefs to all potential clients."
I agree, by adding the moniker "Charlatan" after their title.
Posted by: Lee Picton | September 23, 2008 3:01 PM
I submitted an appropriate comment with adequate snark, I hope. Thanks for the link that made it easy to do.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 23, 2008 3:04 PM
I'm really sorry the dog didn't bite Michael in the nuts.
Posted by: skyotter | September 23, 2008 3:04 PM
"sorry, Doc, but paying this medical bill would be against my sincere, strongly-held moral and religious beliefs"
[/wondering if it'll fly]
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2008 3:06 PM
A moron says:
but maybe i missed the point at which becoming a public servant requires the waiving of personal rights?
Ahhh... I see why one of the many reasons you're so off-base with your ludicrous position. Being a doctor is NOT A RIGHT, it's a privilege -- so saith the Supreme Court -- and the State has the right to regulate said privilege.
A drivers license is another privilege. Being a Certified Public Accountant is a privilege. Being a lawyer is a privilege.
Posted by: JS Mill | September 23, 2008 3:09 PM
I posted my response, for all the good it'll do. But you have to try.
and, jp? You do give up some of your "personal rights" when you become a professional. Specifically, you give up the right not to act as that professional. A doctor has an obligation - obligation, dammit! Not "it would be nice..." - to stop if she is the first on the scene of an automobile accident. In return, doctors are granted all sorts of rights and privileges in society. Don't want them? Don't be that professional. But all professions have obligations, and there is no promise that those obligations will not impinge on your sacred right to do whatever you damn well please.
Oh, and nice try at moving the goalposts. "Medical professional" is not equal to "public servant."
Posted by: JStein | September 23, 2008 3:11 PM
To expect this administration to respect the rights of the individual, at this point, is a little absurd.
Still, I did send a note expressing frustration to those involved (thanks for the link to do that, PZ). We'll see if it bears any fruit.
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 23, 2008 3:11 PM
I read the thing several times, and it seems that this is a lot of uproar after the fact... i still rather this didn't pass, but it seems the real problems are laws enacted in 2005 and 1996. I gues they're just piling it on more an more..
and as a side-note... why can doctors refuse performing a medical procedure, but vegan waiters would be guaranteed to be fired for refusing to serve someone a steak? this is ridiculous;
Posted by: jp | September 23, 2008 3:12 PM
@#55 - "I must have missed that, too, JP. Care to point out who made that claim?
Also, can I ask - do you believe in a patient's right to adequate medical care? Does a physician's 'personal rights' trump those?"
oh please, let's not play this game. this is clearly what's being posted here. the physician's rights are secondary to those of the patient merely because that's the career choice that was made?!? sorry that doesn't fly, especially coming from this crowd. we're all about protecting rights until it's for something you don't agree with?
and of course i do believe in a patient's right to adequate care, but, please tell me how this reg would prevent that. again, this does not preclude an informed consent. it does not prevent the patient from seeking out a provider who will give the patient's preferred treatment, at least from what i read on the linked page. where is the problem here?
Posted by: Rik. | September 23, 2008 3:14 PM
This is so stupid. It really is. Are you sure those...things...governing your country are people, and not an alien invasion force that's trying to introduce policies like this to weaken the human race so we can be more easily enslaved or something?
Really, how can this even be considered? *baffled*
I really hope this is an American thing we're NOT going to imitate here...(sadly, things have been getting more and more American-ish lately...and I don't consider that a good thing..{no offense to any Americans induvidually, just to Americans in general ;) })
Posted by: Badjuggler | September 23, 2008 3:16 PM
I know how we can mark the potentially offending physicians so we can avoid them:
"There's a dead vicar on the landing."
"How do you know it's a vicar?"
"It's tattooed on the back of 'is neck!"
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 23, 2008 3:17 PM
Are you sure those...things...governing your country are people, and not an alien invasion force that's trying to introduce policies like this to weaken the human race so we can be more easily enslaved or something?
I asked Kodos, and he said no.
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 23, 2008 3:19 PM
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | September 23, 2008 3:20 PM
Actually, what you describe is not a new rule, but rather long-standing law (one that I find repugnant as written). What the new rule does is require health providers to provide written certification of compliance with the existing law, as well as expanding the definition of what "assisting an abortion" means.
As existing law currently stands, the government or its accrediting agencies can't refuse to or remove the license or accredation of a health care provider based upon their decision of whether to perform, assist in performing, or referring abortions (either way, past or future). Also, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individual members of the workforce based upon acceptance or refusal to perform or assist in performing an abortion.
Under the existing scheme, a doctor that refuses to give a referral for an abortion can't lose his license, but can be fired by his employer (or sued by the patient).
To me, the disturbing part about the new rule is the broad extent to which "assist" is defined.
A side note: emergency contraceptives may not be included under the law. The law is limited to sterilization and induced abortion. A good case can be made that em-cons do not actually induce abortions (in the end it will depend on the legal definition of abortion).
Posted by: JS Mill | September 23, 2008 3:21 PM
jp, the reg would prevent patients from obtaining care if providers did not provide the needed care. Rural areas often have only a few physicians in a 50 mile radius; if all three of them refuse to provide, say, Plan B contraception to a 17 year old* without a car, guess what? She can't get it. Informed consent doesn't help a bit.
It also allows providers to refuse to refer patients, which is often needed by insurance to cover specialists, and it is consistent with the reg for a provider not to even mention certain options on the grounds that she opposes them. There, informed consent would not be provided, but since one's conscience doesn't allow providing full and informed consent, the fact that it is a professional obligation doesn't matter. It's "discrimination" to criticize this doctor for failing to mention, e.g., Plan B to a rape victim in the ER.
* Yes, it's available over the counter, if your pharmacy carries it, but only to people 18 and up.
Posted by: Jim | September 23, 2008 3:22 PM
@17
I read this and just had to skip down and shoot of my mouth............
in CS there are not "faith healers", there are "practitioners". They do not pray over you but rather lead you to properly pray for yourself. Of course in the scenario presented (heart attack sufferer at an ER) this might be a bit tough to pull off (pain might just be interfering with "clear thinking"). My mom tried to get me to "think clearly" about my medical problems until I was 20 when my father was able to focus things for me: "..go see a doctor this year while you are still covered by (fathers) medical insurance or wait until you can pay for it yourself."
Oh well, it clearly was all part of "Gods Plan" for Jim: untreated childhood condition disqualified my ass for service in 'nam. Preys the lord!
Posted by: Scott D. | September 23, 2008 3:23 PM
If this passes i'll consider converting to "Christian Science" so i can get a job in medicine and receive pay for doing nothing.
Posted by: jp | September 23, 2008 3:27 PM
JS Mill - sorry but i just don't see it that way. you act like this is a well known and professionally accepted obligation and you are wrong. it may be your personal opinion, but nothing more. please show me one professional code of conduct that even addresses this issue and we'll have something to talk about. until then, it's your opinion and you are entitled.
and moving the goal posts? ooooh, you got me. come on now... (if there was ever an over used term around here.) seriously not my intent in using "public servant" and "medical professional" interchangeably. in the context, medical professionals are public servants. nice try though.
but let's be honest here. the only reason this is causing such an uproar is because it's a belief issue. and the only ones taking umbrage are atheists. it has nothing to do with worries of bleeding to death at the hands of a JW nurse or not being able to get an abortion on demand from a Muslim doc. this is a religious freedom issue that has everyone's panties in a wad.
Posted by: skyotter | September 23, 2008 3:28 PM
"... and the only ones taking umbrage are atheists ..."
this is demonstrably false, since i'm not an atheist
Posted by: Jim | September 23, 2008 3:30 PM
No no no ScottD, you do not understand; you do not get to do nothing, you just have to spend much time thinking and talking about stuff that does nothing. It still will take up a bunch of your time (oh, and, of course, it is billable by the hour).
Posted by: Moses | September 23, 2008 3:35 PM
And the moron keeps it up...
This is one of the stupider arguments I've seen in years. Rights constantly conflict in society. My right to listen to loud music at 11:00PM is subordinate to your "right" to get a good nights sleep and if I keep it up, the Police will confiscate my stereo and issue me a citation.
With this simple, real-world example we can clearly see the subordination of "rights" in conflict is, in fact, a normal part of the American way. And nobody, unless they're a lunatic, would argue otherwise.
Now, when it comes to medicine, being a doctor is NOT A RIGHT. It is a PRIVLEDGE, a STATE PROTECTED AND REGULATED PRIVLEDGE.
That is the way it is. That is the law of the land. There is NO ESCAPING THAT FACT. And no matter how many times you try to assert there is some RIGHT attached to being a doctor that allows him to, somehow, escape the reasonable burdens the State places upon him, there is no such right.
In this case, you're actually arguing the physician has the "right" to withhold ordinary, proper and/or necessary care to a patient without an over-riding or necessary medical reason. We call that MALPRACTICE.
Which is really what this issue is about. Some physicians, being of the medieval mindset, wish to be escape the legal and financial consequences of their MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
However, in order to preserve a well-run society, the State says that if you want to be a Doctor, in America at least, you must provide the best medical care possible at all times. Period. REGARDLESS of your religious beliefs.
Posted by: Jadehawk | September 23, 2008 3:35 PM
I'm sorry jp, but when YOUR religion endangers MY life, I tend to get irritated!
And once again, what makes religious convictions so special that they get special exemptions from doing what they find morally wrong, but vegans, environmentalists, and other secular ideologues get told "suck it up or quit?"
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 23, 2008 3:35 PM
Jim, you were indeed lucky. God's Plan for keeping people out of 'nam included fatal or crippling diseases as well. Treated and untreated.
Mysterious ways, mysterious ways.
Seems like this legislation is just one more shove of the camel's nose into the tent.
Posted by: Coriolis |