Because it's there -

[kyburg]

Okay, riddle me this Batman. Would the REAL issue please stand up?

Or - is this really just another chicken and the egg thang?

...This leaves doctors who hold certain religious beliefs in an uncomfortable situation, one they can best manage by helping individual patients find the best practitioners for their specific medical needs. But they have not lost all rights to practice within their beliefs. Physicians can refuse to perform any procedure, such as abortion or in vitro fertilization, that they find morally objectionable. But if they do perform such procedures, they cannot provide them to some groups of patients and not to others. It is true that artificial insemination is an elective procedure, not a matter of saving life or limb, but that's not the issue here.

California's Supreme Court decided that physicians (as a group practice) erred in refusing to provide infertility treatment to an unmarried, gay woman, based on her marital status...and also sexual orientation, according to the case.

The issue was decided that yeah, you CAN decide to refuse/refer cases - if you do it consistently, across the board, to everyone.

No problem, right?

Then why, oh why, do we have this little lovely on the political horizon?

The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Guess why.

Follow the money, folks. YOUR money, that YOU paid in taxes.

Really. There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.

Ghad. Tempest in a teapot and all that.

The next person who tells me the current administration wants to reduce the size of government is going to get a sneer and then laughed in their face. HONESTLY.

Comments

[dracowayfarer.livejournal.com]

Five more months!

[sekl.livejournal.com]

Well if you truly believe that the government is an authoritative body set in place by the consent of the people to make laws that benefit society, then yes, I'm sure he is doing his darnest to reduce that.

[drlaurac.livejournal.com]

I do have a problem with refusing, where pharmacists are concerned. The concept of someone not being able to get their Plan B filled upsets me greatly. If such things bother you, there are other nifty things you can do with that medical degree. I worked for 5 years in pharmaceutical advertising and medical education, made great money doing that. You can work for a pharmaceutical company, or a third party payor. Why are we so concerned about the rights of the practitioner, that we are trampling on the rights of the patient?

[ionotter.livejournal.com]

There's no problem in refusing - just do your job and refer.

Refusing to treat someone because of "X" because you don't like it is wrong, because that presumes that you are specifically saying that you're refusing them because they're "X".

However, if you don't like "X" and the person doing it and you don't want to treat them, you should find them a practitioner who will. Handled correctly and politely, this could become an exceptionally lucrative business arrangement.

Doctor Bibblenutz doesn't like treating gays and lesbians, so they refer the patient to Doctor Bhutsehcks. Doctor Bhutsehcks in turn sends patients with certain needs towards Doctor Bibblenutz. Win-win, and nobody gets their feathers in a ruffle.

Pharmacists are another matter entirely. In the communities where this sort of thing is cropping up, people often don't have the ability to go to another pharmacy as it's too far to travel or too expensive via public transport. A pharmacist is a key link in the treatment chain for which there is often no practical replacement. Therefore, they need to perform their job, no matter what their personal views may be.

[the-paulr.livejournal.com]

Doctor Bibblenutz doesn't like treating gays and lesbians, so they refer the patient to Doctor Bhutsehcks. Doctor Bhutsehcks in turn sends patients with certain needs towards Doctor Bibblenutz. Win-win, and nobody gets their feathers in a ruffle.

I believe that would be the ideal solution, if it were truely about following ones personal morality. Unfortunately many of the people pushing the "right" of physicians to refuse service based on "moral" grounds are trying to force their version of morality on everyone. That's what happens when religious wingnuts get power.

I completely agree with you on the pharmacist part.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

The real issue IS standing up, but few are paying attention. The real issue is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or regulate health care in any way, shape or form. Period.