It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House set to reverse health care conscience clause

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

White House set to reverse health care conscience clause


www.cnn.com

The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.

It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This should make for an interesting discussion.

I'm personally torn on this issue... on the one hand, a patient should have access to whatever medical techniques are available, but on the other hand, how can someone be forced to recommend a procedure they consider morally reprehensible.

As I understand it, this was brought about to address the divisions in society over that abortion issue, but I wonder if there might not be more consequences to retaining or removing this policy. I'm looking forward to hearing some thoughts from the best-versed debaters on the web.


TheRedneck


www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Well one thing is to refused "recommendations" and another to refuse "treatments options" that seems to be the problem.

If I have a medical prescription to a medication that can address my problem that already has been discussed with my medical provided, how dare the pharmaceutical in duty to deny my prescription because she or he has "moral issues".

See that is the problem that I hope is been addressed here.

It became so bad in some areas like the so call Bible belt that even prescriptions for anti conception pills were deny by the some people working in stores pharmacies.

I think is not issue here about been forced to or not to offer alternatives to certain treatments but the dispensing of medications base on "moral issues".



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
OK, I can get behind you on making sure pharmacies are required to fill any legal prescription. The pharmacist, after all, is only there to ensure that the drugs being issued are issued in accordance with the medical practitioner. It is the place of the doctor to prescribe treatment, not the pharmacist.

As I understand it, this is targeted more toward doctors than pharmacists, however. As in the case of abortion, should a doctor be required to refer to abortion clinics for an unwanted pregnancy? Should they be required to discuss abortion procedures with every pregnancy case they see? Could this be expanded to force doctors to perform abortions they did not wish to perform due to moral standings?

That's what I am concerned about: the future implications and scope of something like this. I had always just assumed that a doctor could use their own judgment in handling patients, which would of course include their moral beliefs.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I can understand a doctor refusing to perform an abortion on moral grounds. And, I have no problem with that.

I cannot understand a doctor refusing to refer a patient to another doctor to perform the procedure. And, I have a problem with that.

I am all for allowing doctors to not perform procedures they do not agree with on religious/moral grounds, but I think it is a bit much for the same doctor to not refer the patient to another doctor or clinic. That is going a bit far, in my opinion.

This act can't (I don't think) force a doctor to perform the procedure, but it does keep the doctor from not refering his/her patient to a doctor that will.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
This is great!


If you go into the medical field, you gotta leave your moral obligations behind. I dont' want someone treating me with religion.

Their job is to save people.

Like the people who refuse the morning after pill.

There are just so many ramifications for this. YOu have someone who needs it, who obviously doesn't want a child,a nd you refuse them protection.

( read a story where a doctor did this on a rape case)

so you force someone to have a child, they cannot afford or take care of them. they are not mentally ready.

so then you throw to people in poverty, that is if the girl didn't have an abortion. so that decision could of resulted in a worse one.
as far as i am concerned, the blood is on that doctors hands.

the girls could have many complications from carrying a baby, especiallly if she is young. I think if the child has special needs, the doctor has to pay fro them.

I think actions like these are horrible.

It is not for these people to decide family planning for someone else.

As far as I am concerned, they are playing God.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Actually doctors that are not in the practice of performing abortions should not be forced into referring women into those that do, I am against that.

See no doctor in my neck of the woods performs abortions, but many will prescribe the afer moring pill, if you go into the yellow pages, they have numbers from outside the county of doctors that do.

So if somebody is wanting an abortion all the have to do is get the yellow pages and find a provided that do.

I see what you mean, this has to do also with the after morning pill.

I think is easier to let the fingers do the walking and rather than complain because a doctor do not provide prescription for that option first will be better to find one than do.

Even if that means going outside your network of providers.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
I can understand a doctor refusing to perform an abortion on moral grounds. And, I have no problem with that.

I cannot understand a doctor refusing to refer a patient to another doctor to perform the procedure. And, I have a problem with that.


Patient: Doc, i came for an abortion

Doctor: Madam, I cannot give you an abortion because I do not believe in murder, however I can refer you to another doctor who is pro-murder.


That's just crazy, that's the same thing as doing the abortion himself.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
People to avoid that "problem" is easier to find out in your neck of the woods who do it and who doesn't.

Still is plenty of information in the yellow pages that offer references to doctors that do outside their counties.

No big deal.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Well i know this to be a fact...

I don't want a person that does not want to save my life if needed being forced to do it.

They will surely fak it up and go ohhh wellll.....it wont matter.

So they shouldn't force anyone to do what they don't want to.
Especialy a doctor that's might be trying to save your life.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Those physicians who believe they have a moral or ethical obligation to NOT perform abortions or to prescribe certain drugs should not be penalized. Its not like there aren't lists of Dr.'s at Planned parenthood sites and at their offices that will do the procedure. I find it very disconcerting that the government is trying to force Dr.'s to do the bidding of any patient against their moral or ethical beliefs. Its not the governments job to controll the relationship. Its up to the Patient to change Dr.'s. Thats how the system has worked for ever and there is no reason to change it!

Zindo



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This is an 'entitlement' issue.... bare with me for a moment.

The Health Care industry (such as it is) wants all the benefits of being a business, including profit and liability protection.

Yet some of it's members want to be 'entitled' as citizens to invoke their 'morality' or 'personal integrity' during the execution of their business, without consequences.

How successful do you think a medical business would be if it hung a sign outside the door, "We find Homosexuality reprehensible, therefore we will not treat you."

I think that business would soon fail.

Doctors, will not be ADVERTISING their position on abortion or birth control at the front door will they? They reserve the right to refuse you "on demand".

I think the matter is much simpler than the community wishes to accept.

If doctors and nurses and other medical professionals want this freedom, they should be obliged to make their self-imposed restriction of giving limited medical options for treatment known publicly.

Barring that, they should not be able to tell a patient AFTER services are rendered that all medical options will not be given full consideration from the outset.

There is no special reason medical professionals should be coddled in this matter. We can't force anyone to do something immoral (for the sake of this argument), but we also can't tolerate the indignity presented to the patient when they consult medical professionals for help, only to be told that there desires for treatment are immoral - and by the way, cash only co-pay.

$0.0000000000000002 (adjusted for the Fed)

MM



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


lo and behold the voice of reason while I was so much into the abortion issue, we are forgetting that this can indeed affect other issues.

thanks Maxmars, what we will do without you voice of reason.

Heed people and read Maxmars angle of the issue.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

It is so much easier to send the person elsewhere, but at the end of the day you still had a hand in the action. If that becomes the law then I fear many health care professionals will be looking for a new career. My doctor will never make a referral against his value system.

What are the implications for Catholic hospitals? Regarding FOCA the Catholic Conference of Bishops said they would close the hospitals if forced to do abortions. The impact that would have on the healthcare system would be staggering.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Your too kind!



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The thing many are over looking because of the" abortion clause" is that this isn't constrained to JUST CASES OF ABORTION>
Many doctors refuse to do a lot of procedures not just abortions. This in the end will entail a governmental body to over see the in's and out's of what is required for them to do. Possibly in some case's going against the said doctors beliefs etc.
But being a person or person's in the medical feild it isn't up to the doctor what treatment a patient can be held back from because of the "docotr's personal beliefs" it is medical science that cures or helps impove quality of life not someones beliefs on the matter.
That isn't taught in med 101 people, when you become a doctor you are bound by a code of ethics that doesn't INVOLVE your PERSONAL BELIEFS> It involves you doing what you where trained to do in the profession you choose. If said doctor had reservations before hand said doctor should have chose a different feild!

Case in point::: I have had epilepsy my entire life and at NO time in my life has it ever been under control with the use of medications for more than a month at the most. ( I got it from a blow to the head from a tire iron at around five years old.) The blow crakced my skull from my forehead to where a babies soft spot would be;and left an opening on the insde, allowing the membrane to swell into said crack. Now I am a canidate to have surgery to implant a device that helps to offset the pulses from the brains nerve plex STOPPING the seizures. Also I am a canidate to have a light weight plate made of plastic inserted into the crack stopping any further swelling that in turn causes memory loss and comatose fit's that can last up to a week. I literally "wake up" a week later and not know where I am and what has been going on; as I go through out my day normally even though I am not mentally or physically "aware"!

Well guess what all three doctors I had seen when I had found out about the surgery, didn't want to reffer me guess why....It was against their BELIEFS that a woman my age (only 28 at the time) should NEED the surgery this late in life. SO SORRY 28 IS NOT OLD.
So here I sit I now have on top of the epilepsy massive nerve damage that could have been avoided had said doctor done his job he studied for and accepted.
I wouldn't have low blood pressure from repeated strokes and heart attacks from the severe seizures. Also wouldn't have a blood oxegen level so low my blood appears "BLACK" because of the lack of oxegen. There are A LOT of people like me who have been refused an operation because a doctor had "beliefs that where contrary to the treatment".
IF I had the surgery when I was 28-30 I would have been able to go through physical therapy and have a normal life like everyone else. I would be able to drive a car, leave the house on my own and go to a store.Not to constantly have an escort!
Not have to wear sunglasses constantly because light can effect me badly and in MANY cases actually sun burn my eyes due to having had to wear them for so MANY years now.
It isn't up to a doctor to decide what his beliefs allow you to do with your health decisions, it is up to you. IT IS however THEIR responsibility to stick with their training and code of ethic's and supply the best medical treatment possible. It is that simple they are trained to be doctors not self rightous gods.


[edit on 8-4-2009 by xoxo stacie]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


I'm sorry to hear about the problem. If you think its only their personal ideas that are guiding their decision I believe its not entirely true. Their oath says first and formost." Do no harm' ! Have they told you they think its dangerous or are they plainly not interested in your case?
The government telling your Dr's to perform the proceedure will not change their belief system. Nor will it make it any safer for you to undergo the surgury. If they have not apraised you of their exact reasoning, you have some recourse, but if they have and they are not willing to play with your life in a manner that would harm you, and they have said that right up front, no one should force them to do otherwise. You have the right to find a Dr. that sees it differently but not try to force these Dr's to do it!
Also anytime the government gets involved, there is no garruntee you would be approved for this proceedure. Rationing of health care for cost is prevelent in all countries where socialized medicine is available. I hope you find a remedy but, thinking the government will change that just isn't so!
Zindo



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox

If you go into the medical field, you gotta leave your moral obligations behind. I dont' want someone treating me with religion.

Is it possible to leave all moral stances behind?

And if it were possible, would you place your life in the hands of someone who had absolutely no moral positions?

Every doctor, pharmacist, engineer, plumber, attorney, electrician, and ditch-digger is also a person, with all those likes and dislikes, beliefs, values, and sensibilities that we all have. I can't leave behind my values when I report for a job; I don't think my employer would want me to. One of those value judgments is that I believe in doing my job to the best of my ability regardless of how I may be treated. If my treatment is unbearable, I find another job; I do not try to 'get even' by performing poorly. If not for that moral center, there would be nothing to prevent me from doing a poor job and thereby affecting a myriad of others in their job performance.

Now as bad as being a 'slacker' is in most occupations, how much worse would it be in the medical profession? Would a doctor who did not want to perform a procedure but was forced to by law be more likely to make a mistake? If they had no moral center (which includes, supposedly, a desire to save lives), would they work as hard or as diligently to save my life or yours?

I don't think we're talking about being treated with religion here. Faith healing (which I believe in and actively use, btw; it has worked so far) isn't something that normally happens in a doctors office. I know of no one who goes to a doctor expecting to be treated with a sermon.


Maxmars: I like your thinking. This could indeed be seen as a form of entitlement, but is it a form of entitlement that is bad? After all, not every attorney is required to take every case, not every engineer is required to take every job, and not even every truck driver is required to take every load. A large part of being a professional is knowing when to say 'no'. Should we remove that right to refuse from every profession, and if so, how do we enforce that and what effect would it have on performance?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Insurance companies refuse people referrals and treatments each and every day, there's economics and medicine for you. President Obama continues his relentless cheap partisan appeal to his base and make them all smile as he signs away more and more of these inconvenient lives.

Doctor's do indeed take oaths on their profession, medicine has (until the current era) never been viewed as an ammoral activity. It's very purpose is to save lives, or used to be, now it is about economics as personhood is reduced to productivity and ability to contribute to the economy.

I hope some of these Doctors, if so forced to give all the therapeutic options, also take the chance to offer the option of membership of their local Parish where a community of support will help them through pregnancy and beyond. They could even help them with Catholic adoption services, though of course they are also under attack because they won't keep Adam and Steve on their books.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


You bring up a very excellent point, this isn't just limited to abortions and birth control. It goes for surgeries, medications, etc. and could be the difference between knowing all your options and only being told what the doctor wants to do which could lead to severe harm coming to the patient.

I once sat through a continuing education class while working as a CNA where they had a chiropractor come in. He was telling us that hardly anyone actually needed medicine, that what everyone really needed was a trip to his office. A woman I worked with told him that he was wrong, that some medications truly are needed, and that her doctor had her taking a few aspirin a day because of her heart problems. This guy actually looked at her and told her that her doctor was wrong, that she didn't need aspirin for her heart, and demanded to know if her doctor had ran any tests to see if she was "aspirin deficient". Had this guy decided to be a doctor rather than a chiropractor, I shudder to think how many people would have died due to his beliefs. What's even scarier to me is the number of people he has told this and similar things to who have suffered as a result.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join