Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs

Opinions?

*The Bush administration yesterday granted sweeping new protections to health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs, setting off an intense battle over

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.

Leavitt initially said the regulation was intended primarily to protect workers **who object to abortion. The final rule, however, affects a far broader array of services, protecting workers who do not wish to dispense birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraceptives and other forms of contraception they consider equivalent to abortion, or to inform patients where they might obtain such care. The rule could also protect workers who object to certain types of end-of-life care or to withdrawing care, or even perhaps providing care to unmarried people or gay men and lesbians. *+scientific research, as well as, stem-cell, & other, treatments when they become available in the future]
While primarily aimed at doctors and nurses, it offers protection to anyone
with a “reasonable” connection to objectionable care – including ultrasound technicians, nurses aides, secretaries and even janitors who might have to clean equipment used in procedures they deem objectionable.

Full article: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801556.html?hpid=topnews

Since there is no medical condition that would warrant an abortion, I’m all for it.

Damn, it won’t let me edit the post, but I wanted to comment:

What bull… I guess they failed to realize that not only people of their faith practice in health care & some religions have some crazy s… going on, which now will be protected.

What if you or your close one had an accident, & are lying on the operating table losing blood & your doctor just turns out to be a Jehovah Witness? I hope you had a nice life.

What if the health care provider is a Christian Scientist?? Good luck in getting that surgery to cure that cancer.

& so on, there ae many examples how this is dangerous to everyone.

Since there is no medical condition that would warrant an abortion, I’m all for it.

This includes much much more than just abortion.

Good for Bush. This is a prayer answered by many persons in the medical professions. :thumbsup:

I agree with you on this; though having spent a good bit of time in the OR, I can see this being overruled by the anesthesiologist.

Easy solution: you go to another health care provider. Since there genrally is no emergency surgery for cancer (unlike appendicitis) this wouldn’t be a problem.

Easy solution: you go to another health care provider. Since there genrally is no emergency surgery for cancer (unlike appendicitis) this wouldn’t be a problem.

I know I know, :stuck_out_tongue: I was just making an example. But that’s bull then, cause the doctor is denying the services that are in their job description.

Furthermore, it is easy to say “go to another health provider” if you live in a big city, what about smaller towns that don’t have at least a few hospitals.

Well, if it’s something like abortion or “emergency contraception,” then I guess that person will have a baby. If it is a life-threatening illness, like cancer, and they want different treatment, I guess they will go out of town…or die a natural death at a later time, rather than have care withdrawn. :shrug:

Go to a different practice that has privilages at that hospital.

What are the odds that a Jehovah’s Witness would become a surgeon or a Christian Scientist become a doctor?

Then why do pro-lifers become doctors that do abortions?
It’s not like any doc can do it

  • This will include not only doctors, but all almost all other workers close enough to the sphere.

They don’t. Some states have tried to make sure that all potential doctors get training in med school to perform abortions. This rule would prevent that. It also allows pharmacists to not dispense the abortion pill. Would you want only pro-death people to become pharmacists? Also nurses would be able to “pass” on assignments in order to not participate in abortions.

or even perhaps providing care to unmarried people or gay men and lesbians.

What “care” could be denied to singles or homosexuals that is available to others?

Yeah, but if you’re going to an abortion clinic, or working in one as a nurse then you know what you’re signing up to.
I don’t really have a problem with doctors refraining from abortion if it’s a general hospital & it’s not thier specialization. Otherwise - THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. Furthermore, it is wrong that they will not direct the patient to another profesional.

Would you want only pro-death people to become pharmacists? Also nurses would be able to “pass” on assignments in order to not participate in abortions.

If they aren’t selling a product & you have a prescription for it (or none if it’s none required), then THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. It’s like somebody refusing to sell chicken at KFC. That’s what the place is there for! Chicken! Not for you to tell customers they can’t eat it & decide for them.

What “care” could be denied to singles or homosexuals that is available to others?

How about general medical care?? or any care? Somebody could just claim that in their books homo/black/white/men/women/whatever are dirty/abomination/can’t be touched/ etc & justrefuse to care for them.

You make some good points, the thing is, you aren’t going to find this devout of a JW or Christian Scientist in the medical field because they DO object to modern medicine.

I think in this case it would be helping homosexual men get condoms, artificially inseminating a lesbian woman, or giving birth control to singles. Basically anything that would encourage immoral sexual relationships in the eyes of the physician.

You say that like it’s an unusual occurance. Right now, I know women who need to drive 50 miles one way to get to their obstetrician, not because there’s no doctor in their town but because they’ve been labled a “high-risk pregnancy”. It could be that she’s carrying twins or some other common condition that has a higher-than-average level of risk for the baby(s) or the mother. Doctors that handle such pregnancies must pay enormous sums to insurance companies for malpractice insurance. If the doctors live in a low-population area, it’s not worth it financially to pay the extra on the premium, and so they are prohibited from accepting high-risk patients.

<><

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.