This Medical Conscience Rule for health workers recently approved by the Bush administration has me worried.
Under the rule, which takes effect in January, anyone from the neurosurgeon to the pharmacy cashier can choose to not participate in the medical care of any individual because of a religious or moral objection.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt describes this rule as protecting the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience. That's the conscience of the health care provider, of course.
The Family Research Council, doubtless dancing in the street shouting yippee and slurping champagne, calls this ruling a gift to pro-lifers because health care providers now have a right to make professional judgments based on moral convictions. So much, apparently, for the Hippocratic Oath.
Abortion is the obvious moral issue here. According to this ruling, a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription for post abortion antibiotics if the reason for the antibiotics is known and the pharmacist objects to abortion.
I'm always willing to take things to the most far fetched scenario. So, what if someone suffering from AIDS seeks emergency room treatment for say, a broken leg. That treatment, despite EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) federal legislation can be denied if a nurse or doctor feels that people suffering from AIDS are sinners.
And what about people openly gay or lesbian? If the dentist feels homosexuality is wrong, screw the cavities.
Let's take this even further. Anyone believe that mental illness is a direct result of masturbation and that masturbation is a sin? How about body piercings? Those among us still bogged down in Leviticus might refuse medical treatment to anyone wearing an ear ring. Forget all of the other places we pierce.
You see where I'm going with this.
I know a thing or two about barn doors. They are rarely open just wide enough to accommodate field mice. Once opened a little bit, it doesn't take long for every horse on the ranch to gallop with wild abandon through the hills. If enough barn doors open, what we wind up with is a stampede.
Let's hope human nature has a door stop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Overwrought lately?
I know a thing or two about medical personnel who provide emergency care. They're not in it to demean others and their procedures are predicated on the assumption that every patient's fluids are life-threatening.
Dentists are equally cautious in their practice.
Of course, I understand what you mean about THOSE PEOPLE who believe in the Old Testament. But there aren't so many of them, except maybe in New York.
I suppose that health care providers who oppose alcohol use could refuse to treat people with liver cancer, just to add to your nightmare.
That appears to be the case.
Responding to the comment of anonymous -- I assume you refer to universal precautions which does operate on the belief that all body fluids are potentially infected with something. Universal precautions does not contain moral judgment. Treatment is not denied because of the contents of a person's blood. Health care professionals have gloved up for years and continue to provide life saving and respectful treatment. My scenario looks at the potential for the denial of health care based not on the illness of the patient but on the religious or moral beliefs of the health care professional. I see this as a back door to denying women abortions. And then that ability to deny can go just about anyplace. I also believe that there are plenty of health care professionals who will treat and treat well regardless of whether or not the approve of the person needing the treatment. I believe we need to be aware of potential.
Do you think that the people in health care who believe that abortion is absolutely wrong have, until now, been working in abortion clinics? If so, think some more.
Think supply-and-demand. The demand for doctors and nurses has exceeded the supply for decades.
Do you expect that suddenly the bulk of doctors/nurses will develop a repugnance for abortion? The last time I checked, nobody around here had to wait more than a couple of days or travel more than a couple of miles.
Lastly, do you think that there is any great moral benefit to abortion?
I don't think people who think abortion is wrong choose to work in abortion clinics. If they do make that choice we have an entirely different discussion here. However, I do think that -- if the bill is as far reaching as is implied -- there might be people aside from doctors and nurses who are, yes, in chronic short supply, choosing to not participate in the health care of a woman whose abortion has become complicated. I'm not saying that this will undermine health care. On the other hand, it does bear observation. Flood gates, barn doors, and all.
Is there a moral benefit to abortion, you ask. I don't know. I do know the potential for physical and emotional harm when abortion is not legal.
Post a Comment