The federal government, as well as many states, have enacted "conscience" laws to protect medical professionals from being required to perform medical procedures to which they are morally opposed. In some cases, there is a direct conflict between the health of women and the religious freedom of the healthcare provider. In such instances, what criteria should be used to evaluate the rights and responsibilities of both parties, when should each prevail and why?
Background information can be found at the links below:
EurekAlert
Az Republic - Obama to potentially overturn federal ruling
Az Republic - State conscience law
Conscience Laws Org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
How dare lawmakers tell me what I can and can’t do with my body. Being in the medical field myself, I was subjected to certain issues I wasn’t proud of. When you hit the doors of a medical facility your ethics and religious values stop there. These lawmakers are making this about ones self and we are not here to please ourselves we are hired to a job that we were trained to do. Regardless what the case may be, a doctor, nurse, pharmacist ECT. should not be able to tell me what is morally right for me based on their ethics and values. As a woman I will protect myself anyway possible from getting pregnant. Should that be using condoms or birth control that’s my right/ my choice as an American. If it’s a available and it’s legal I will use it because that’s my choice to do what I want. To have many kids is not meant for me and I refuse to make babies if I can’t afford to take care of them. Its not society’s responsibility to take care of or raise child that I bring into this World. As for abortion well, there should be limitations to how many a woman can have and how far along she is. Unless there is a medical reason to not go through with the pregnancy. I feel that if a woman is willing to abort, she should have the option to donate to stem cell research. She is able to be protected and anyone in outside agencies should be fined for bribing women with money to for their embryo. Obama is making the right decision to reject this law regardless if he is pro choice or pro life, a man shouldn’t be able to make the decision for a woman.
I believe that the government should not interfere a woman’s choice when it comes to reproductive rights and what not. Society can decide a person’s decision just for the good of the people. I personally believe that a doctor should have the rights whether or not they feel comfortable doing a procedure. This is why I do not plan on being a doctor, because my moral judgments can affect the way I perceive things in the medical field. I think Obama is doing the right thing about rejecting laws. No medical professional should tell a patient what to do base on their medical ethics and morals. And as mentioned before, religion should stay out of the way when it comes to abortion. But in a way, if a woman is continuously having abortions, then MAYBE the woman should do something about it. I am glad they are working on a way to clarify what a nurse, doctor, or practitioner can do to HELP out the patient, rather than just telling what to do. I think the major criteria for both parties should completely understand the health risks of conceiving a child. If a woman is going to die, and the only way for her to live is by having an abortion then let it be. However, if a woman is capable of giving birth without any risk factors, then the doctor could refuse. If that is the case, the woman should look for another doctor who will be willing to do that. Whether Obama is pro life, or pro choice I believe he’s making the right decisions when it came to rejecting those laws.
I think President Obama is doing the right thing by rejecting these laws. I feel it is a person’s right to do what they want with their own body, if of course they are in their right state of mind. But the medical personnel should not push their beliefs onto someone else. I would never do one myself but I feel that it’s a woman’s right to have an abortion or whatever the case may be. These medical personnel should do everything they can to help the patient with their problem not push their beliefs on them. They should make sure the woman is aware that there are other ways to get rid of your baby besides abortion, adoption for example. But lets face it if the mother is adamant about having an abortion, most likely they’re going to do it. If a woman has a right to do with her body what she wants, therefore it has to be right for these medical personnel to refuse to do certain issues if they are highly against them. A person could always find another doctor that is willing to do what they ask. I look at it like someone not doing something that’s against his or her religion. Certain things you just can’t fight over, religious and moral believes happen to be one of them. You can try, but does your point really get across? I don’t know. I think its great that President Obama was able to set aside his beliefs regarding something like abortion and make the ethical decision that someone else, whether or not they’re a “medical professional” cannot make someone do anything. All in all it all depends on the person’s own beliefs. Everyone should have the right to do what they believe.
I think that it has no issue all medical doctors or practioners are reguired to take an oath to do no harm and to do everything to save a life. If a medical practioner refuses to do something based on their ethics and religion the practioner has broken their oath to heal and should have their licsene to practice medicine removed. There should be no exception to this Doctors are healers their very job is to heal those in need religion has no say in that. The only time religion can play a role is if the patient herself says so otherwise if the doctors can't handle it give up their medical liscene and find someone who will do it. I can't say it enough it is the very code of conduct all healers go by if not swear to that makes this a none issue you heal no matter what. This is the orignal oath.
I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
This oath has problems here is the newer version used today.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
I point to line "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required," and " Above all, I must not play at God." It basicly straight out says they must heal and that they don't get to play at god choosing lives or play for god and choose who to heal.
If these were extra acts like abortion for the sake of no child its a different boat but for a medically needed reason no they have no wiggle room.
These are oathswears they MUST uphold their oaths if not for the people and oaths but for the very God they claim to serve and who this oaths are sworn before no matter the religion.
People who say or do otherwise then follow their oaths are oathbreakers and should be shunned like the pestilince they are. Oaths sworn with full knowledge and consent are more binding then anything I know of in this world and should be fully respected and up held.
I think that Obama was right in his decision about the conscious rule. Woman should have the right to have reproductive rights and that should prevail over religious rights because they should always have the right to get the medical procedures and resources if they are legal. When medical professionals decide what field they want to pursue they should also consider their religious beliefs and decide if that’s a good choice for them. In addition there are different clinics that offer different services and the medical professional or healthcare provider should make sure that their beliefs aren’t going to conflict with what they are hired to do. For example if a medical assistant is against abortion they should make sure that the place that they are going to work at does not provide abortions because that would directly conflict with their beliefs and the care that they have to provide to their patients. Medical professional should not advice woman on their decisions solely on their religious beliefs. They should let them know if the different options that they have considering pros and cons and have the woman decide what they want to do. Therefore woman should be able to get anything that is legal such as birth control and abortions if that is there choice. A medical professional should never be able to deny that from them.
I think it is very plausible for the Obama Administration to over turn the bill that allows health care professionals to refuse much needed care or counseling in the name of the right of conscience.When it comes to health care professionals, they are supposed to be advocates to the general public.They owe it to their professional ethics and values when they choose the health care profession to serve and protect the people.The onlt ethics the health care professionals need to worry about is not to do any harm because the medical profession makes these professional swear the "DO NOT HARM"swearing.In the name of protecting their own right to conscienc, they should not refuse to any care that a woman seeks that is sort of abortion.Abortion is a whole different subject and it does involve doing harm to the fetus meaning potentially killing a human being.Any health care professional that holds counseling or treatement including the prescription of after pill medication and other reproductive health care to woman should be subject to professional discipline.The government should not be the one to step in and say do this and do that.All health care professionals have their own ethical guide lines and rules they should go by and any body that opposes those guide lines should not be a member of the profession.When it comes to health care always the person who needs the care comes first not the one rendering the care.
The two conflicting interests are the health of women and the religious freedom of the health care provider. Women have the right to health care and should receive the same standard of health care. It is her body and her decision whether or not a procedure or medication should be taken whether or not the health care provider approves. The health care provider’s role is to inform and perform or abstain from medical procedures based on the patient’s wishes. The health care provider has the same rights as everyone else to freedom of religion. The problem occurs when the health care provider is morally opposed to the action the woman patient has decided to take, i.e. the morning after pill or abortion. We do have freedom of religion. However, there are laws to limit the doctor’s use of religion in medical practice such as praying with patients. The doctor cannot force their religion onto their patients so to speak, so the question is do the patients have the same right? The objections to allowing health care professionals object to giving care because they are morally opposed to it are that by doing so the health care professionals are putting the woman’s health in danger and might not be able to find another health care provider to perform the requested services such as in the rural areas. The proponents to allowing the health care professionals to object to giving such treatment are that women can find other health care professionals to give the requested care and that the health care professionals have the right to refuse based on their basic human right of freedom of religion. Since the health care professionals do have freedom of religion yet their position limits their practicing at work so I do not see how it is ethical to allow them to not treat their female patients. If the health care provider feels that performing such actions is immoral then they should find another staff member to do the job and perhaps find another place to work at. This is not religious prosecution; this is simply one not doing their job. Health care providers take an oath to care for patients above all else and if they feel their religious and personal beliefs come before that then they need to find a health care setting whether they won’t be ethically conflicted and won’t put their patients health at risk. There is a difference between this situation and not hiring based on their religious beliefs. Take for instance an employer needs to hire someone to work certain hours but the applicant refuses to because of their religious beliefs. Would it be wrong to not hire them? No, because they are not the best applicant for the position. If the person was already hired and mislead the company about what hours they can work, then the company should try to reschedule around what would work for all employees, but if not possible then I do feel the company has a right to fire that person. Health care professionals who work at abortion clinics know what they are doing and believe in the cause. One does not take a position there and then refuse to do abortions. It’s the same principle at drug stores refusing to sell the morning after pill. Sure, a store can pick and chose what they sell like tobacco and adult magazine but when the product is medication they have a duty to provide the best care for their patients. If they are so opposed there should be a website listing all the stores who refuse to sell the morning after pill so women know a head of time. However, if the store does carry the Plan B pill then the employees do have to fulfill their job by filling the prescription. They have the right to step aside and let another person fill it since not filling that one pill should not have a big effect on their job as a whole, then that is fine. However, if there is only one person working or all of them are opposed to filling then someone has to give the patient the Plan B pill. If they do not then they can be fired. The patient’s health comes first because the health care professionals did take an oath and no one should be denied care because of their doctor’s own personal feelings. Also, because the patient makes the decisions pertaining to their own body and since it is legal the patients have the right to continue with the procedure and the health care professionals should not impede this right. It is the same as a patient denying or removing care. This is the same principle that allows us to restrict the health care professional’s religious practice to protect our own religion and our health. Our own right to chose whether or not to practice religion is being impeded by the health care professionals not allowing the patients to make their own decisions in such matters. This is all pertaining to women’s health, Plan B and abortion. Now in other cases such as IVF then the doctor does the right to refuse to implant 6 embryos in an unemployed woman who already has six children. That is different because in the Plan B and abortion the woman’s health and rights are being put in immediate danger. The later situation such as the “Octomom” is different because it is an elective procedure and the health risks are significantly higher to allow the woman to continue the procedure. In these cases the doctor should take the issue to an ethics committee and if they deem it ethical then it can be done by some other doctor, if the first doctor in question still feels uncomfortable with the decision to allow the procedure to be done.
For Miriam -
Doctors, nurses, as well as any healthcare provider all have the same rights to religious beliefs as any other human being. We all have the fundamental right to believe in whatever we choose is necessary to make us feel whole spiritually, and try to do what is morally right to be productive citizens in society. I believe when choosing a profession like the healthcare field, there are obviously many areas to evaluate, simply because you are dealing with all areas of human life. Dealing with sensitive issues and making decisions from a professional viewpoint, as well as having to make decisions for others who can’t do for themselves. I believe the health care provider is trained to do whatever they can do to help those in need for the better outcome of everyone involved.
I think in the case of health care professionals, not having a choice in their moral beliefs are wrong. Doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath in that they shall do no harm, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. If a Doctor or health care provider has taken this oath and has sworn to stand by it in that there will be no physical harm or no emotional abuse ho w, could they be expected to cause spiritual harm to themselves, and or to there patients, if there belief is that it is immoral to spiritually harm a fetus by committing abortion. I do believe this is taking away the fundamental right to choice in personal moral behavior. There are other healthcare providers available who are not looking at this as an issue. I do think that there is an exception however, in cases were the mothers life is at stake, or a crime has been committed to the pregnant mother, these issues should be looked at accordingly. Pharmacies may have a right to stop supplying the morning after pills, but I do think it is very, contradicting. I think making it more difficult for women to access these medications will only make the issues of abortion more prevalent, and more unwanted children to be cared for .The morning after pill is not taking a life , it is preventing a life from beginning. I think the healthcare professionals will prevail in this case even if the new laws are established that is for the true believer. I also think that the medical field as well as the patients will feel the effect if the new laws come into affect. I am pro choice for the right to choose for this is the only true right we as citizens truly have left.
This particular issue has very good arguments on both sides. If a patient is requesting help he or she should not have to feel like they will be judged or refused treatment. Although I can understand that a medical professional has rights and values too. BUT… when it comes to the medical profession you know that you may sometimes be faced with performing a procedure that you may not necessarily agree with. That is just part of the deal, you are obligated to help your patient and if that happens to be performing an abortion or a sex change operation then so be it. My suggestion for these medical professionals would be to avoid that particular field of medicine if they feel that the procedures are morally, ethically, or religiously wrong. I don’t think there is any trouble with dermatology being morally or ethically wrong. As a patient I would hope that the oath my doctor or physician took when receiving their license would be sufficient enough to not worry that I may someday be refused treatment. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their feelings and beliefs. I don’t really feel that there is criteria that can be set for what is or what should be done in these types of situations. The reason I feel this way is because I value our right for freedom much more. We all are different in many ways which is what makes us such a great and wonderful country. Unfortunately we cannot please everyone all of the time. This would be a very boring world to live in if we always agreed on controversial topics. As far as the prevalence of one over the other is hard to decide… I guess it would have to depend on what type of situation the patient was in. I understand that the conscience law pertains to abortion, capital punishment, contraception, sterilization, artificial reproduction, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human experimentation, torture, etc. Some of these items listed I disagree with so I would have to side with the medical professional refusing treatment, for example torture. In no way ever should a person be tortured. I believe this act is wrong on every level: moral, ethical, and religious. I believe in a woman’s right to choose for abortion, contraception, sterilization, and artificial reproduction. If she chooses to have a baby by means other than intercourse than that is her right. When it comes to capital punishment, this is in the Bible. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. If you take someone’s life than it would seem only fair to have yours taken as well. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also a person’s right to choose. If I were ever in a situation that I would have an option to live and die a painful and horrible death than of course I would want another option. The medical profession has ways of making this happen; we can be comfortable and proud of our life’s accomplishments and die with dignity on our terms. Human experimentation is something of a conundrum for me. I suppose if the person was willing and knew all the terms and still agreed to be experimented with and of course same goes for the medical professional then why stop them. Just because we don’t agree on these subjects does not mean that they are wrong for everyone. We have choices and rights. If we choose to be a doctor than we know that there is a risk of performing a procedure that we don’t agree with. As I mentioned before if it is a problem then find another line of work or another division of medicine.
I believe that everyone is entitled to their belief and as a health professional they may need to put their beliefs aside to an extent. It is necessary to have health care professionals that can put their beliefs aside to provide the best care that they can. Ethically not everyone thinks alike and we all put our beliefs aside sometimes. If it is something to the affect of abortions, I do believe that the physicians have the right to not perform them if they are ethically against them. There are always other physicians that are ok with it but more are against it because they believe they are doing harm. I do think that physician have to consider that they may do things that they think are morally or ethically wrong and decide if that is the career they are wanting to persue. If a woman is having multiple abortions without the use of protections, the physician does not have the right to force the woman to use protection and so the woman should not force the physician to correct her mistake. If it is an abortion because of a rape, I'm sure there are physicians that feel they are performing a service if that is the case. All in all no one should have to do something that they are STRONGLY against nor should anyone have the right to force their beliefs on other people.
I, personally, think that a person has a right to get any legal and proper medical treatment and this great tradition of equally treating every human being shouldn’t be influenced by believes of any individual. For every career, there is an outline of what should be performed and how it should be performed. There are times when we are required to repress our believes and thoughts to follow laws, rules and instructions. And if there is a law that gives us the right to act upon our believes, then we have the right to oppose what other things this same law suggests based on our believes and then it‘s not a law anymore. To maintain an order in life, laws and regulations are required to be equally applicable to everybody. I might work at video game store but believe video games bring violence into our society. If I am a parent, I might believe that my children might acquire bad behaviors from others in school, but I don’t stop them from going to one. It might be easy to assign somebody who believes otherwise to carry out the abortion in urban areas, but what about rural areas? If a women is raped or if abortion is required due to a possible death to a mother, how are we going to let the agreement between doctors in a small rural hospital wipe out the involuntary concern of the patient and the legality of abortion. In reality, we can apply our “right of conscience” in our everyday decision making, but since employers everywhere wants us to get the job done, we should get the job done. And I think the same should apply for doctors. As far as religious medical institution is concerned, there is a common belief of opposition of abortion and there is an atmosphere of agreement and requirement of opposition. I think the best solution to this is that abortion-seeking women should try not to go there at first place.
The medical field is there for a purpose, & that purpose is to provide care and administer the most empirical treatment as possible. Yes, providers do have rights; however they cannot always refuse to administer certain treatments that go against their moral statutes or their particular ideological thinking. Their competing moral responsibility to their patients has significant importance & must be taken into account. The state conscience law that Bush established can be interpreted by many different point of views that makes it a broad law and can be taken for granted.
In non-emergency cases of women wanting the morning after pill and a physician not able to comply with the woman’s needs due to his moral beliefs is okay. However, I think that the physician can write a referral. The reason being is that the women will most likely do it anyway is some form or another to rid her of being pregnant. By given the referral, will most likely reduce some women from doing something drastic, like putting a baby in a dumpster, or going to some quack individual that says they can perform a procedure to eliminate the pregnancy and gets killed or develops a severe infection in the process. How would a doctor feel if that was his prior patient? The question that comes to my mind is that the common ground or compromise could have been was to have given the referral in the first place. No matter what none of us are responsible for other people’s choices along with their consequences. People are going to make the choices as they see fit & we cannot stop them. People have the right to make choices whether they are right or wrong, moral or immoral. Don’t most people learn from their mistakes or lessons, granted though some take longer than others and some never do but for the majority this point is something to keep in mind.
Now, some of our laws, statutes, opinions you name it get constantly changed or re-amended. So, with this note rules/guidelines are needed in order to balance the rights & responsibilities of both the provider & patient. I guess you can say it’s a compromise, I really don’t think either side should totally prevail over the other.
In summary, the general compromise would be that the provider can have that law as a safety net during non-emergency situations along with reputable referrals that will educate prior to a procedure, or when prescribing medicine. However, it should balance when it is an emerging situation and not deprive the patient of the empirical treatment that they need that is based on the provider’s conscience alone. We all on a daily basis balance our rights, responsibilities accordingly to our needs & situations.
Everyone knows there are many rules that medical personnel have to obey but we hardly ever hear about situations in which they are directly affected. I believe just like patients have rights, medical professionals also have rights. I know many people will say that when a doctor or anyone part of the medical staff gets into the field that they have taken an oath to treat and help out patients. I have to totally agree with this, because by not doing this they are committing negligence. Religion is something that will not go away soon. For example, I have always wanted to be in the medical field ever since I was probably 6 years old. Recently I have accepted Christ. So reading about this did take on a personal affect to me because I feel this is a situation that I could go through. Obviously I am not in agreement with the main: abortion or not doing something for a patient who does not want any treatment. Or just like some patients who want help to end their life. In the end, God gave us a brain and liberty to choose whatever we want, and I have to respect the patient’s wishes. And if it’s their time then it’s their time. Only God can give and take away a life. Something I would do if I was a doctor is that I would clarify to the patient what are the things I will not do. For example, like I had mentioned before, I do not agree with abortion, which means I should not specialize in any field that would involve women coming to get abortions. If a religion is really important to you, you will never do something out of the ordinary that will go against your beliefs. That is why I agree with making laws to protect medical professionals from being required to perform medical procedures to which they are morally opposed. If a physician is not comfortable with performing a procedure then he/she should clarify it to the patient so he/she understands it and can find someone else who can help them. Also people should know who will be treating them, and should ask about their beliefs, because having the same beliefs are very helpful in the medical field. Not only does it allow you to be comfortable with your physician but it there have been many studies that show that prayer for those who do it is very helpful for the recovery process. I am glad that Obama’s administration will allow health-care workers to deny procedures if it violates their moral beliefs. I think it is sad that it hasn’t been installed before. No one has the right to not have their beliefs not being taken into consideration. Just like us they should have to right to do or not do what they please. No one should be telling them what they can or cannot do. What I did not like when I read on was that officials said the administration will consider drafting a new rule to “clarify” what healthcare workers can reasonably refuse to do for their patients. They shouldn’t just be “clarifying” anything, because if no drastic measures are taken and only a little modifications are done, then what have the medical professionals gained in all this. But in the end, at least we are moving one step forward and not backwards.
The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that each and every one of us has a right to practice our own religion; however, the right is not absolute. In the 1800s there were members of the Church of Later Day Saints who practiced polygamy, yet the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of those members who were charged with polygamy under a federal law banning the practice. The Court worried that if they overturned the convictions, it would set a precedence for even more extreme religious practices. The Court stated: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” (Reynolds v. United States 1879) Basically, we can believe whatever we would like, but we may not be able to practice our beliefs, which is where the conscience laws passed by the federal government and several state governments come in. It is a way to define what a professional in the medical field can practice as to his or her beliefs. The language of those laws sounds vague, and refinement of the language can only help to be a protection for both the patient and the healthcare provider.
In every profession, a person has to decide what aspects of the field will create a problem for them morally. The medical field is especially fraught with issues that can test a person’s morality. As there continues to be advancements made in medicine, we push the boundaries of what is morally and ethically acceptable. A person considering a profession in the medical field would want to look at all aspects of the career they are training for, and then decide if there are any duties or circumstances related to their profession that would cause a moral dilemma for them. If abortion is a problem, then working in a Planned Parenthood clinic would probably not be the best fit for them. They would also have to decide what they would do if put into the situation that would cause a problem for them, and if there would be any exceptions or conditions under which they would put the patient’s welfare first. If there are none, then they should consider how they plan to deal with the situation, and when they would make their patients aware of their beliefs.
In cases where there is a conflict between the health of a woman and the religious freedom of the healthcare provider, there are many issues to consider. The criterion that is the most important would be how imminent the situation is. If a doctor believes that abortion is wrong, yet a woman comes in with an ectopic pregnancy, then the life and health of the woman should take precedence. The baby has no chance to survive, and the mother will die. It would be a lose/lose situation in that case, if the abortion was not performed. However, if there is a woman who either had unprotected sex or her contraception failed, that situation is not an emergency situation. If the pharmacist has a problem with Plan B, the woman can talk to a different pharmacists in the same pharmacy or go to a different pharmacy. Is it inconvenient for the woman? Certainly, but in a case like this, the religious beliefs of the pharmacist can take precedence over the health of the woman. If she is smart, a woman will have a contingency plan already in place (like having Plan B on hand, having obtained it from a pharmacy whose pharmacist has no problem with it, or some other back up plan).
The woman bears the greatest responsibility where her reproductive health is concerned. When she goes to see her doctor about birth control, she should ask questions about different methods of birth control, and the pros and cons of each. If she isn’t ready to start a family yet, she should ask about her options if she does happen to become pregnant. If her doctor has a problem performing abortions, and she wishes to keep it as an option, then she should ask for a referral for another doctor. If a woman wants the right to do what she would like to with it, then she needs to take responsibility for her choices and plan ahead, especially if she lives in rural areas with limited medical care. Having grown up in a small town with only a clinic, everyone knew that it was going to be a two hour drive to see a doctor or go to a hospital. In emergency situations, it was going to be a two hour ambulance drive or airlift. You plan for the worst, and hope it never happens.
What it boils down to is that each of us has a right to exercise our beliefs; however we need to take responsibility for those beliefs and plan as best as we can. We need to know ourselves and what we are and aren’t willing to do, but also account for beliefs different from our own, and be willing to help others in some way that will still accommodate their choice, while not compromising our own.
Religious freedom is very important to many and seems to go hand in hand with most public health facilities it would seem to make sense to have a “conscience law” for such places. They should not get involved in what women can do with their body, and by Obama overturning Bush’s confusing bills I believe he is doing the right thing. But what about the hospitals and clinics not bound by a religious group? Should they be the independent ones to perform the procedures that others won’t do? Why make it even harder for women to get the medical care they need when a doctor is going to reject them. Especially if it’s a rural area what are women to do but travel a hundred or hundreds’ miles to the next best place. Women have the right to whatever they feel is necessary for their body even if that means taking the morning after pill or having an abortion. So women should always have the right to be treated without being turned away. They should also know what they are about to do before they do it. I think that the doctor should help the woman especially if it threatens her life. As for the health care providers I think they should have their right to refuse to do a procedure on someone if it goes against what they believe, but only when there is some else there willing to do what they won’t do.
I think that the woman will prevail when it comes to the reproductive rights because religion has so little decision or none toward what the woman wants to do with herself. It is all up to the woman whether they want to listen to go with the religious beliefs but she has every right to disagree if she doesn’t like the way they might think or do things. Know when it comes to medical professionals they also have the right to chose to make procedure or not. But they also have to take into mine that some hospitals or clinics might have some special obligations or rules that they have to go by and if those rules or obligations contradict to what their moral beliefs are then they should of looked for another place to work were nothing will be contradicted.
Post a Comment