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 and/or reproductive rights 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
AZ Central - Recent legislation signed by Governor
AZ Central - More on recent legislation signed by Governor
Conscience Laws Org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Women have health and reproductive needs, and it is important that they have access to services which meet their needs. In this country nobody is forced to work in a certain profession. I believe that anyone considering working in the health care field (or in general) should choose not to work in an area where he or she may be called upon to provide some medical treatment (or other service) for which he or she is not comfortable providing (for religious or moral reasons). Meeting the essential medical/reproductive needs of women seems more important to me than protecting some medical professionals from having to give treatment (against their religious/moral beliefs), considering that nobody required these professionals to work in this area. If someone signs up for a job, they should be expected to perform its attendant duties, so long as there is full disclosure of the types of services they will be asked to provide before taking the position. So long as a health care professional is not asked to do something illegal, he or she should be willing to do whatever is expected in his/her profession, or else he or she should find another profession to work in. I think it should be expected of medical professionals that they meet the medical needs of their community to the best of their ability. If someone’s religious or moral beliefs interferes with their ability to provide medical care, they should choose another career. A woman’s medical needs are not optional. The field that someone chooses to work in is optional. These “conscience laws” basically allow medical professionals the freedom not to do their job. In my opinion that is ridiculous. Don’t sign up for a job that you are not willing to do!
I think the physicians should have the right to not perform procedures which they morally feel is wrong. I would never want to take place in a procedure that involves abortion (if the abortion is not of means to save the mother). I don’t support abortion, and feel it is wrong in most cases. So if the woman has the right to abort their child then why shouldn’t the doctor have the same rights to not do the procedure. If people are fighting for the right of woman or patients why can’t the doctor get the same choice?
They can have it in their hiring process not to do some procedures and be protected from being forced to do these types that they morally feel are wrong.
I can understand the frustration the patients are going through, but I would be afraid that the doctor might botch the job if made to perform the procedures. It all comes down to peoples right to refuse!!!! Their choises!!!!
Health-care workers should not be allowed to refuse any type of medical treatment or prevention for their patients regardless of their own individualities. Not only are health-care workers fully responsible for bestowing such care, it is their professional obligation and duty as medical providers. To fail to do so would be discrimination against the patients’ moral, civil, or religious freedoms. Not only is the failure of duty discriminating, such restrictions could have negative, lasting effects on the patients’ health. The only moral actions health-care workers should be granted against emergency contraceptives and abortions should consist of informing patients of alternatives and any medical risks associated with procedures. Morality should play no role in the treatment of patients, because once morality is invoked, bigotry and biases are soon to follow. The rights of the patient should always come first. Health-care officials treat the body, not the soul therefore what the patient believes to be moral is irrelevant. A good example would be if a lawyer chooses not to defend a client based upon morality, the entire criminal justice system would fall apart because the system is based on equality of representation. A lawyer might not want to defend a person accused of rape, but under the jurisdiction of the court, he has to provide a defense for the accused. If doctors were allowed to choose patients based on their moral beliefs, then the indigent would not be seen. The health-care field should be “tolerant of individual conscience, certain religions beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions, and moral convictions (Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services).”
When the rights of the provider and those of the patient conflict, what should be done? Conscience laws are in place to protect the religious freedoms secured to us by the Constitution of the United States. These are fundamental rights, which cannot be taken away. It is unconstitutional to force one to practice medicine in a way that clearly interferes with his/her religious freedoms.
If this interferes in the way someone wants a certain medical procedure performed they are free to seek health care in another institution or with another provider. The patient has the right to refuse treatment if she feels that the procedure or the provider is/will violate her religious freedoms. This goes both ways, both the patient and the provider have religious rights, neither can be infringed upon. This is a first amendment right and cannot be taken away from anyone regardless of your profession.
Being part of a medical community I can agree with the rights of healthcare workers to refuse to provide a treatment to a patient they are uncomfortable with or opposed to. However, this does start what many refer to as a “Slippery Slope.” The “Conscience” Laws are the start of this controversy. Regardless of personal moral or ethical beliefs, it is still one’s duty to care for a patients needs in a timely manner. If one healthcare worker refuses treatment of a patient another must comply. In other fields of work, if an employee chooses not to perform a task due to moral or ethical beliefs another coworker has to step in and do it, or the supervisor has to. Many forms of employment may not even allow such choices. When a person takes on a job and the responsibilities of that job, you have an obligation to perform those duties or leave the job. Why should it be different for healthcare workers? What makes them an exception to the norms of employment? All healthcare workers know what is going to be asked of them in employment, as well as the things they have been trained to do.
The “Conscience” Laws allow healthcare workers to refuse treatment or medication administration based on personal moral or ethical beliefs. The law was put into effect at the end of the Bush administration and some how got skated through without a lot of publicity. I heard about it but not enough detail was given to truly understand the law in its entirety. For a woman to be denied birth control is outrageous…what are we going back in time??? The latest and most important medication created for rape victims, the Plan B pill, can be refused to the victim… now abortion rates will begin to increase; does that really seem like an improvement??? Many people associate with this law expressed that women will still get the treatment and medication needed because of the vast number of resources available to obtain them. What about the rural population or low-income families? Are they going to be able to drive hundreds of miles to get their needs met? If a rape victim in a rural area is denied the medication needed to prevent pregnancy and has to drive over 100 miles to find someone who will fill her prescription, is the state going to compensate her for time and expenses being she is a victim of crime? What if she can’t get the medication within the time frame of the medications effectiveness? If she gets pregnant is the State going to provide all the healthcare and expenses required to abort or carry the unborn child? Are they going to locate and pay for an adoption company?
The “Conscience” Laws may be giving moral and ethical rights to healthcare workers, but what about the rights of women? It feels like we are going back in time. I hope Obama does away with this ridiculous law. The next election for Mayor in Arizona, I will be out in full force to get rid of Brewer!!! She hinders women’s contraception rights but allows concealed weapons into bars, what was she “taking” when she passed these bills?
I think it is ok for physicians and pharmasist to use their conscience rite. We all have our own beliefs and moral statutes. I don't think it's right for some to force their beliefs on someone else. There should be some type of exception by law for the woman who live in rural areas and can't go anywhere else to get the plan b, abortion pill and birth control for what ever reasons. Also in an emergency situation the conscience rite should be put to the side.
I also don't think birth control should be put on that list, because birthcontrol is used for more than prevention of pregnancy. Some physicians use prescribe it to regulate womens cycle, treat PMDD and try to control the growth of ovarian cyste. These things should be considered when looking at birth control it's used for all sorts of things oh and forgot some physicians use birth control to aid in getting pregnant. So it should be carfully considered.
There may be conscience laws in place that protect medical professionals from reforming medical procedures because the professional may have moral beliefs that restrict them from acting. What were the law makers thinking by making it so broad? Did they even consider the responsibilities the medical professionals had? I am talking about two professionals, a doctor and a pharmacist. Doctors seem to be protected because of the AMA code of ethics, P. When a personal moral judgment or religious belief alone prevents you from recommending some form of therapy, inform your patient so that they may seek care elsewhere. Did the law makers even consider the rights women have on the subject of reproduction? Pharmacists have a code of ethics. There are eight separate areas mentioned in the code. Number 3 - A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient is just one of them. If a pharmacist turns away a person with a request of medication required for early termination of pregnancy because their moral beliefs are conflicted, why is this even a problem in the first place, because of their code they are supposed to uphold? Let’s talk about the rights a woman have on reproduction. Human rights (the right to health) give a woman reproductive rights- access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making. These rights are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. In my eyes it is plain to see that the laws should have never been passed the way it was just by looking at the rights and responsibilities of each party. I think the law should have had some exclusions written in it. I think the human right woman possess should always prevail, because they are the strongest, set in stone collection of rights a human can have.
http://www.ama.com.au/codeofethics
http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/Pharmacist_Oath_and_Code_of_Ethics.html
Personally I believe many of these conscience laws are some legislators’ attempts to fuse religion and government. Our constitution allows freedom of religion and right of privacy. Constitutionally each individual has the right to practice any religion of their choice as well as the constitution’s right to privacy gives women the right to choose pregnancy or abortion. Myself may not share one pharmacist or medical professional’s religious views. More than likely that professional does not have a complete understanding of my particular circumstance or situation. Many of these conscience laws clearly violate basic constitutional rights. The laws cross the line by projecting the will of one individual onto another. Would it be legal for a medical professional to deny treatment based on religion alone? For example can a Muslim doctor refuse medical treatment to me because I am a Christian and he does not agree with my religion’s doctrines? Or I am a doctor and a neo-Nazi skinhead is in my emergency room requiring treatment but I am morally opposed to his beliefs. There are many factors that should be considered when enforcing such conscience laws. Psychological, maternal, and financial factors should be evaluated, the availability of resources should also be carefully considered as well as timing of circumstances. As a medical professional offering all options of treatment and being to perform those treatments if desired by the patient is a must or professionals should be fully equipped to offer patients alternative reasonable options based only on the provider’s expertise or lack thereof or inadequate facilities. Lastly, I do believe once you enable individuals to discriminate based on religious morality supported by the law you open yet another door allowing dominate religions to divide and conquer in support of their beliefs systems.
When it comes to the direct conflict between the health and/or reproductive rights of women and the religious freedom of healthcare providers, I personally don’t feel like the government or the state should have agreed upon laws to protect medical professional against procedures that they are morally opposed to. Medical professional are supposed to serve the community. A women has health and reproductive need and its important that there needs are met. Physicians, pharmacist, nurses etc. all took an oath and they should abide by that oath.
The oath of a pharmacist: “At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy. I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns. I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct. I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public”
The Physician oath: “At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession: I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration; I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.”
If a medical professional does not what to serve a person because they are morally apposed because of their religion, morals, and beliefs then maybe they should only server a specific population with the same out look and then that medical professional would not have to perform a medical procedure they are morally apposed to vs. serving the community as a whole and having the deny help to a woman in need. The physician oath clearly states the help of my patient will be there first consideration and they will not permit consideration of religion party politics and social standings. They should stand by it or pick another professional. A woman has rights and the medical professional has responsibilities and obligation. People always want to restrict women rights and men’s rights are never tampered with. The time a medical should refuse treatment is if the woman is putting her life in harms way.
The idea that a physician or pharmacist could on their moral obligation offer less than normal medical assistance to women regarding emergency contraception or an abortion is the polar opposite in which their profession demands. It is the health care provider responsibility to offer the best possible care and to respect a patients right to choose. Although their are instances in which a woman's health and /or reproductive rights directly conflict with the religions beliefs of a health care provider. The patients rights should outweigh those of the provider, given that the provider has chosen the career with the full knowledge of what possible procedures or medication that their patients might need in the course of their career. This is not the forum for the provider to have their own personal moral obligations to take precedent to that of the patients medical choice. It may seem that providers moral obligations don't matter if so it is up to that individual provider to find a different profession where they are not asked to put their obligations ahead of their morals.
Their is the assumption in the laws that are being enacted that if a women is refused assistance by a physician it is easy for them to receive the medical attention in a timely manner. What about the many people that live in rural areas where their is only one or a limited amount of alternatives to get an abortion or contraception now is this another form of banning such procedures or medication by indirectly placing time and travel restraints. it is my opinion such laws will be reversed in higher courts but until the the criteria to evaluate the rights and responsibilities of the provider should be to place the patient ahead of whatever moral obligations that they might hold. All a women wants is to be provided with the best possible care to ensure that their health and reproductive rights are respected.
I believe that a health-care worker has the right to refuse conducting treatment if he/she feels it’s morally wrong. I also, think that woman has the right to receive access to services so were does the needs of the health-care workers and the needs of the patients meet, well I think if the physician refuses to accomplish to give service because of religious views or ethical issues the patient should seek another health worker that is willing to give her the service she is seeking. I believe in freedom of choice!
Post a Comment