Bush broadens new "Conscience" Rule

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Liar]

How many days before this asshole is gone?

http://www.springwidgets.com/widgets/view/66853

Hey, you asked.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hot Mama works for one of those Catholic hospitals. It is among the finest in the state giving care to anyone who needs it with no regards to their ability to pay . . . and still manages to remain solvent. But they won't prescribe birth control pills and they won't provide abortions. Take it all into balance. Where do you think that concience lies?

 

[shereads]

This simplifies things for ER physicians at Jehovah's Witnesses Memorial Hospital.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[DesertPirate]

Hot Mama works for one of those Catholic hospitals. It is among the finest in the state giving care to anyone who needs it with no regards to their ability to pay . . . and still manages to remain solvent. But they won't prescribe birth control pills and they won't provide abortions. Take it all into balance. Where do you think that concience lies?

Don't forget, if Washington takes that right away they will be closed.

 

[TE999]

Now that it appears we're making medical decisions on strongly held beliefs, what about those physicians who believe in 'Death With Dignity' and the medical usage of pot to alleviate pain and suffering.

I guess only those beliefs that are Heavenly Approved (tm) will be guaranteed by governmental fiat.

What blatant favoritisim.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Boxlicker101]

http://www.webmd.com/news/20081219/new-conscience-rule-controversy


Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule
Bush Broadens Rule on Refusal of Health Services for Moral Reasons
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Dec. 19, 2008 -- An 11th-hour ruling from the Bush administration gives health care workers, hospitals, and insurers more leeway to refuse health services for moral or religious reasons.

The rule, issued today, becomes effective in 30 days. Its main provisions widen the number of health workers and institutions that may refuse, based on "sincere religious belief or moral conviction," to provide care or referrals to patients.

"This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience," says Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in a statement.

Previous rules allow health care workers to refuse to provide abortion or sterilization services to which they are morally opposed. The new rulings give individuals and institutions much greater leeway in refusing to provide services to which they are morally opposed.

The ruling, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, covers an estimated 571,947 "entities" including doctors' offices, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, medical and nursing schools, diagnostic labs, nursing homes, and state governments.

Each of these entities is required to certify in writing that they will comply with the ruling. Failure to comply may be punished with loss of federal funding.

A wide number of medical groups strongly oppose the new ruling. These groups include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 27 state medical associations.

The focus of the new ruling is on protecting health care workers and institutions that oppose abortion and a broad interpretation of "sterilization."

"Today's regulation issued by HHS under the guise of 'protecting' the conscience of health care providers, is yet another reminder of the outgoing administration's implicit contempt for women's right to accurate and complete reproductive health information and legal medical procedures," says a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The Catholic Health Association, representing the Catholic hospitals that care for about a sixth of U.S. patients, strongly supports the conscience ruling. The group says it's seen a number of efforts to force doctors to perform -- or make referrals -- for abortions and sterilizations.

"Ultimately, the central question is whether organizations and individuals should be required to participate in, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for services that directly contradict their deeply held religious or moral beliefs and convictions," the Catholic Health Association noted in a Sept. 24 letter supporting the rule.

The Family Research Council, which strongly opposes abortion, also supports the ruling.

"This is a victory for the right of patients to choose doctors who decline to engage in morally objectionable practice," the FRC says in a statement.

A Sept. 24 letter signed by the AMA and many other medical groups says existing laws protect health care workers from having to participate in practices they find morally objectionable.

(article continues)



Naturally Bush would approve this, since it is obvious that most medical professionals do not. What a suck-faced pisshead.

How many days before this asshole is gone?

I bolded two parts because I found them interesting. The ukase goes into effect two days before W goes out of effect. I wonder if Barack Obama will rescind the ruling right away.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Now that it appears we're making medical decisions on strongly held beliefs, what about those physicians who believe in 'Death With Dignity' and the medical usage of pot to alleviate pain and suffering.

I guess only those beliefs that are Heavenly Approved (tm) will be guaranteed by governmental fiat.

What blatant favoritisim.

What if we have a physician who is a Muslim fundie and believes that Jews have no right to live. Would he be able to refuse to teat a Jew? I can't help but think this edict is running contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What if he believes he is not allowed to touch a woman who is not his wife? Would he refuse to operate on female patients?

 

[glynndah]

Ever notice how that "conscience" stuff always goes in favor of the fundamentalists? Those whose conscience tells them to give as much treatment as possible, unbiased by faith-based whatevers, always seem to get shunted aside for those with "better" consciences.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[TE999]

What if we have a physician who is a Muslim fundie and believes that Jews have no right to live. Would he be able to refuse to teat a Jew? I can't help but think this edict is running contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What if he believes he is not allowed to touch a woman who is not his wife? Would he refuse to operate on female patients?

Heh! Can you say 'slippery slope'?

This decision is both a knee jerk reaction and wrong on so many levels.

 

[Liar]

I bolded two parts because I found them interesting. The ukase goes into effect two days before W goes out of effect. I wonder if Barack Obama will rescind the ruling right away.

He'll most likely look into it early on. But from what I understand, revoking those kind of things takes a while. And will be met with a delaying legal obstacle course, most likely a court challenge or two, blah blah.

 

[Liar]

What if we have a physician who is a Muslim fundie and believes that Jews have no right to live.

I think there's a case for discrimination charges there.

Let's twist it a little. What if we have a paramedic and his conscience doesn't allow him to treat Republicans? Unlikely, but hypothetically possible. I don't think their equality is protected under the constitution.

Thing is, I don't disagree with people's rights to don't to stuff. But choices have consequences. If I choose to not wear pants, I'll probably not get a job where not wearing pants is a no-no. If I refuse to take them off, I'll make a lousy stripper. And I probably shouldn't work as that. If I choose to not do stuff that are central to my profession (if I'm a pharmacist, that would be to fill out prescriptions and hand out pills), it's fair to say that I suck at my job. And that would be grounds for firing me.

It's kind of ironic that Bush and his repub ilks are so vehemently against unions, and at the same time is seemingly embracing the two aspects of organized labor that can be seen even by the left as epidemically bad - micromanaging working conditions and protecting bad apple employees.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SARAH

In 30 days you're gonna be in serious need of a life. You'll miss Bush.

 

[Safe_Bet]

What if we have a physician who is a Muslim fundie and believes that Jews have no right to live. Would he be able to refuse to teat a Jew? I can't help but think this edict is running contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What if he believes he is not allowed to touch a woman who is not his wife? Would he refuse to operate on female patients?

Nah. It won't apply to anybody that disagrees with right wing fundie ideals. The good Christian doctors will be able to refuse to perform an abortion to save a mother's life, but everybody else had damn well better toe the line or they will burn them at the stake just like in the GOOD 'ol days (which I'm sure they sorely miss!)

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[DesertPirate]

It seems to be a consensus here that Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists don't have any right to their own beliefs. Sounds like the totalitarian idea the Right is always accused of. I just love the double standard.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[DesertPirate]

No, that isn't the case, DP.

This rule that Bush is in such a hurry to push through is not for the health care providers.

Notice how many medical associations disagree?

From above - A wide number of medical groups strongly oppose the new ruling. These groups include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 27 state medical associations.

And also from the article - A Sept. 24 letter signed by the AMA and many other medical groups says existing laws protect health care workers from having to participate in practices they find morally objectionable.

Health care workers are already protected.


The only purpose of this ruling is to limit and try to prevent abortion. Which, by the way, is still legal.

But it will work, too, because in some locations women will not be able to travel to find help for their situation.

Nicely done, Shrub.

The AMA has a vested interest in doing things that keep business flowing to their members. All they really are is the Dr. profit protective association. Look how hard they have fought prevention over the last 15 years, they want you sick.

Abortions will be harder to get no matter what. A little reported trend is that fewer Drs are willing to do them. As the Dr population ages the number will continue to drop. Young Drs don't want to known for doing them.

 

[cloudy]

It seems to be a consensus here that Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists don't have any right to their own beliefs. Sounds like the totalitarian idea the Right is always accused of. I just love the double standard.

They have every right to believe in the fucking flying spaghetti monster, if they so choose.

They shouldn't have the right to inflict their beliefs on anyone else, but now they do. And that's exactly what it is: a fucking infliction.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Another factor reducing the number of abortions is that younger women aren't seeking them out. Commentators note that as earlier and earlier preemies are surviving, fewer women are looking at their fetuses as 'things' and more as 'babies' so the demand for abortion is dropping.

 

[DeeZire]

It seems to be a consensus here that Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists don't have any right to their own beliefs. Sounds like the totalitarian idea the Right is always accused of. I just love the double standard.

DP - You convieniently ignore the double standard of the doctors proscribing marijuana, which is denied by the feds.

Re: the issue at hand - Doctors and nurses do have a right to their own beliefs. The problem arises when their own beliefs prevent them from doing their job, in which case they should get a different job. It's that simple.

If I'm a luddite and I don't believe in computers, I shouldn't get a job as a computer programmer. If I'm a conscientious objector on religious grounds, I shouldn't join the infantry of the armed forces (although I could be a medic or other support person if I wanted to.) If I'm a fundie and I don't believe in abortion, I shouldn't get a job as a pharmacist who must dispense contraception, or as a doctor who must perform abortions to ensure the health of the mother.

Perhaps the solution to this dilemma would be different categories of medical providers, with the government filling in the gaps. In other words, if there's a rural community with no pharmacy or doctor willing to proscribe the morning after pill or do abortions, the government could install a clinic for that purpose, giving the residents a choice. The doctors and pharmacists staffing the clinic could rotate in and out as part of a Service to America type of program paying off their student loans. In that case, they wouldn't get their student loans if they objected to the terms, and they'd have to get private loans, thereby absolving them of the need to go against their conscience.

I know, the right wing would bitch like hell seeing their tax dollars go to such an enterprise, just like the left wing bitches like hell seeing their tax dollars going to Iraq. In a democracy, we can't all get what we want at the exclusion of everyone else. However, if our democracy wants to go the way of the Taliban, letting religious dogma define our laws, perhaps we should add an amendment to the constitution defining this new relationship between God and our legislative process.