White House expected to reverse 'conscience' rule for doctors

[OnePimpTiger]

Christian doctors' group protests rolling back 'conscience' rule

A organization of Christian physicians argued Wednesday against an impending rollback of a federal rule allowing health care workers to refuse to provide abortions, saying it's discriminatory.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures...

...Under the rule, workers in health care settings — from doctors to janitors — can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

First of all, let me point out that CNN, a supposedly respected, worldwide news organization, starts of this article with "A organization"...wonderful work fellas!

Now, regarding the topic of the article: I have no problem with a doctor refusing to perform an abortion or refusing to provide services, info, or advice about the other issues listed. The only one I may be conflicted about is blood transfusions in emergency situations. Other than that, why should a doctor not be allowed to say they do not provide that service and tell the people they should find another doctor who does if that's their wish?

[gatorboymike]

Because human life is infinitely more important than some doctor's beliefs. If a doctor can refuse an abortion, a blood transfusion, or a vaccination on religious grounds, they could refuse any medical procedure on religious grounds. If you got shot and were bleeding to death, and your doctor told you, "I refuse to treat your wound because I believe removing bullets from human flesh is against the will of the cosmic dinosaur I worship and therefore immoral," would you say that you respect his beliefs and proceed to bleed to death on the hospital floor so as not to offend him? Would you say fine, I'll see if I can find another doctor who doesn't morally object to treating me before I bleed to death?

It is not the job of medical professionals to pass moral judgment on your health. Their job is to care for your health. Here's another example. What if you went to your mechanic and he told you he wouldn't fix your transmission or replace your radiator fan because he was morally against those procedures? Does that sound reasonable to you?

I don't know how people like this ever get jobs anyway. Should hospital administrators have to go down a list of which injuries and ailments the doctors they're considering hiring will and will not treat based on their beliefs? These doctors are almost as bad as "Christian Scientists."

[OnePimpTiger]

Because human life is infinitely more important than some doctor's beliefs.

First of all, I find that statement quite ironic when defending abortion.

But to address your thoughts on the issue, the only example you gave is an emergency, life-or-death situation, which I said would be my only concern about the rule. The other instances, which I'm sure are the majority of the times the rule would be applied, abortion, vaccination, etc, are not emergency situations. To offer you an example, what if a woman who just found out she was pregnant, but had no current medical issues or dire situations, went in to the doctor and asked for an abortion and the doctor said he didn't do that...she goes to the next doctor. What's the big deal?

From what I can tell, most of these situations are far from emergency situations, the people have plenty of time and alternative options. If that's the case, the only thing being lost is money by the doctor who chooses not to provide the service. What if the rule was that a doctor can refuse to provide the service, info, or advice in anything other than an emergency situation?

[daniel3417]

Because human life is infinitely more important than some doctor's beliefs. If a doctor can refuse an abortion, a blood transfusion, or a vaccination on religious grounds, they could refuse any medical procedure on religious grounds. If you got shot and were bleeding to death, and your doctor told you, "I refuse to treat your wound because I believe removing bullets from human flesh is against the will of the cosmic dinosaur I worship and therefore immoral," would you say that you respect his beliefs and proceed to bleed to death on the hospital floor so as not to offend him? Would you say fine, I'll see if I can find another doctor who doesn't morally object to treating me before I bleed to death?

It is not the job of medical professionals to pass moral judgment on your health. Their job is to care for your health. Here's another example. What if you went to your mechanic and he told you he wouldn't fix your transmission or replace your radiator fan because he was morally against those procedures? Does that sound reasonable to you?

I don't know how people like this ever get jobs anyway. Should hospital administrators have to go down a list of which injuries and ailments the doctors they're considering hiring will and will not treat based on their beliefs? These doctors are almost as bad as "Christian Scientists."

I see your point, however, if we could somehow in my lifetime make it back to a free-market, these people wouldn't stay in business. A doctor that refuses to do certain necessary procedures will make an annual salary of $0,000,000.00.

[GrimUSMC]

yeah the onyl issue there is Blodo Transfusions, the others have no bearing on life or death.

I do also see Gatorboys point about the potential for fruitcakes to take it too far. I personally believe if someone has a moral problem with abortion, they should not be required to assist someone with it

[OnePimpTiger]

A question...how is a secular government forcing a doctor to do something they are religiously against any different than a non-secular government asking an athiest to do something religious they are against? In both cases, it's the government imposing it's morals.

gatorboy, you're all the time against ideas and actions being imposed by religion, yet this is exactly the same thing in reverse. I have no problem with someone having different beliefs than me, all I ask is be consistent.

[gatorboymike]

A question...how is a secular government forcing a doctor to do something they are religiously against any different than a non-secular government asking an ATHEIST to do something religious they are against? In both cases, it's the government imposing it's morals.

It's different because the United States is a secular country and the medical profession is a secular industry. Whatever religious beliefs people might have attached to it - and it seems that people attach more religious beliefs to that industry than they do to most - it is a secular industry nevertheless. And when I say secular, I don't mean atheist, I mean not respecting an establishment of religion, as it says in the First Amendment. This is no different from the government telling public school teachers they can't refuse to teach the theory of evolution on religious grounds. If the government were to tell teachers they had to teach the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myth, people would be coming out of the woodwork to oppose it. That's why they have private schools, so they can get around that (which I don't agree with either, but that's a different issue). If you want to establish private hospitals where they won't let you in if you're not a Christian, then within those walls you can refuse abortions, transfusions, vaccinations, appendectomies, tapeworm removal, acne treatment, X-raying, or whatever makes you feel all warm and squishy. I think that's pretty contemptible, but it's within your rights. But in a public hospital, you can't do that. "If X is wrong with you, then my god says you deserve it, and I therefore refuse to treat you" is a religious value. But "If someone's health is in danger, they should have unrestricted access to health care" is not a religious value, it is a secular value. That is a value held by people of all religions and those with no religion. And that's why a secular government is within its right to enforce the latter.

gatorboy, you're all the time against ideas and actions being imposed by religion, yet this is exactly the same thing in reverse. I have no problem with someone having different beliefs than me, all I ask is be consistent.

I think I am being consistent, as by my reasoning explained above. Do you not understand my point of view on something? Well, as to the value of life and abortion, my feelings on that are complicated, but I still think they are consistent. If you really want to read a long explanation of them, I'll give one, but I assume you don't really care.

[GrimUSMC]

Most Hospitals are Private. For the Governemnt to interfere with that operation is an issue. Again, I see having certain rules in place about Life or death procedures, liek a blood transfusion, but an abortion is not life or death for the mother if it is not performed, so I dont see how the Goverment can tell me that I have to help someone have that procedure. How can you say theyre allowed to do that??

It's different because the United States is a secular country and the medical profession is a secular industry. Whatever religious beliefs people might have attached to it - and it seems that people attach more religious beliefs to that industry than they do to most - it is a secular industry nevertheless. And when I say secular, I don't mean atheist, I mean not respecting an establishment of religion, as it says in the First Amendment. This is no different from the government telling public school teachers they can't refuse to teach the theory of evolution on religious grounds. If the government were to tell teachers they had to teach the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation myth, people would be coming out of the woodwork to oppose it. That's why they have private schools, so they can get around that (which I don't agree with either, but that's a different issue). If you want to establish private hospitals where they won't let you in if you're not a Christian, then within those walls you can refuse abortions, transfusions, vaccinations, appendectomies, tapeworm removal, acne treatment, X-raying, or whatever makes you feel all warm and squishy. I think that's pretty contemptible, but it's within your rights. But in a public hospital, you can't do that. "If X is wrong with you, then my god says you deserve it, and I therefore refuse to treat you" is a religious value. But "If someone's health is in danger, they should have unrestricted access to health care" is not a religious value, it is a secular value. That is a value held by people of all religions and those with no religion. And that's why a secular government is within its right to enforce the latter.



I think I am being consistent, as by my reasoning explained above. Do you not understand my point of view on something? Well, as to the value of life and abortion, my feelings on that are complicated, but I still think they are consistent. If you really want to read a long explanation of them, I'll give one, but I assume you don't really care.

[OnePimpTiger]

First of all, thanks for the details, sincere response...I appreciate that.

Actually, I think we basically agree on this. If the doctor in question is a government employee, or an employee of a company funded by the government, then they should abide by the rules set up by the government...if they don't like it, as with any situation with any job, find a new job. But I think most hospitals are privately owned or owned by corporations. The example you gave with education is different because schools are directly funded by the government. Most hospitals are not...many are publicly owned, but not government funded. Also, from what I understand, this rule would apply to private practice doctors as well, which is exactly like a private school.

My issue with the whole thing is not the religion aspect of it, but the government telling private businesses how to operate. Basically, if the doctor works for or is funded by the government, they should have to abide by government's rules on the issue. If they are privately or publicly owned, they should be able to make their own decisions on the issue. And if I understand correctly, I think you agree with that. Like Daniel said, the only loss would be incurred by the doctor or company who chose not to provide the service...the patient can always find another doctor.

And as I said before, I'm basing my opinions on non-life or death situations...if it's an emergency and the patient needs a blood transfusion or they will probably die, that's a different circumstance.

[gatorboymike]

You're right, I also oppose government telling private businesses how to run themselves. Personally, I think hospitals should be able to be held accountable for things like this, but I don't want to get dragged into a discussion of universal health care.

My fear in allowing this behavior in non-life or death situations is that it could put us on a slippery slope to allowing it in life or death situations. All it would take would be for one zealot doctor to refuse an abortion to one pregnant woman whose pregnancy was killing her, and the battle lines would be drawn. Get ready for Roe vs. Wade II: Roe vs. Wade Harder! It'll be worse than the Zero Tolerance policy at schools leading to the schools trying to expel and bring criminal charges against 12 year olds for bringing cough drops.