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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Yep, the brightest minds on the Net.


Reading over all these posts, something pertinent to this discussion occurred to me and I thought I would post it here. On the subject of referrals not being the same as the actual service:

I used to own and operate a house plan/structural design service years ago. Customers came to me, not just for a set of blueprints, but for advice and information. The way I promoted my business was to freely give that information and advice as an extra free service. A large portion of that service was the referral of various contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.

I accepted no direct kickbacks for my referrals (but I would accept reverse referrals
). Instead I wrote up a memo that specified what would be required to place someone on my referral list. To get on that list, they had to supply me with all pertinent design information I needed to make design considerations. They had to provide me with an example (multiple examples, usually) of previous work for inspection. They had to provide me with references of previous satisfied customers, or some sort of assurance that they would satisfy their customers. And finally, they had to uphold their standards of quality and customer satisfaction throughout the time they were on my referral list. More than once I have intervened when a dispute arose between our mutual customer and a referred company.

I did all this for one simple reason: when I told a customer that they should go see Mr. X, Mr. X then became, in their eyes, an agent of my firm. Even though I was careful to make sure every single customer understood there was no relationship other than a referral between us, their experience with Mr. X reflected on and colored their experience with me. As such, I protected my name and my reputation by going this extra mile.

Now, by the same principle, would the public not have the same expectations when being referred to a doctor? Would their experience with the referral not color their experience with the referrer? And therefore is it not the moral obligation of every profession, even a doctor, to safeguard their name and their practice?

I just thought this might be food for thought.

TheRedneck




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


No, any stores in the US that have pharmacies in it have to obtain a license for the dispensing of medications in order to have that license is certain rules that they have to abide by law.

Choosing what to dispense or not due to "moral" views may bring diciplinary actions depending what state is the one that have the problem, each state holds a board that deals with those issues.

I have to fix the first post I did.


[edit on 8-4-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Now, by the same principle, would the public not have the same expectations when being referred to a doctor? Would their experience with the referral not color their experience with the referrer? And therefore is it not the moral obligation of every profession, even a doctor, to safeguard their name and their practice?


It isn't going to be much of a safeguard if the doctor loses patients due to "moral constraints" and then refuses to refer patients to doctors who will do and perform what the patient needs.

If women go to an OBGYN who won't prescribe birth control pills or perform tubal ligations due to "moral objections", how secure is that doctor's practice going to be? How high will their regard be with new patients?

Same goes with men going to a urologist who won't perform a vasectomy. If the doctor won't perform the surgery due to moral objections, how secure is that doctor's practice going to be?

I am all for doctors refusing to perform abortions, but that is about the only clear cut, black and white issue there is. Where is the line drawn on what doctors and/or pharmacists will and will not do in the name of morals?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Interesting it seems now I see the need for such a reverse of health care conscience clause after reading this article from the Board of Pharmacy.

The problem started with the Ohio and then Oregon.


Oregon pharmacists cannot however, interfere with a patient's lawfully and appropriately prescribed drug therapy or request for drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for restricted distribution by pharmacies.


So no matter what if the drugs or devices needed in treatment are approved by the U.S. Food and drug administrating (FDA) that falls under the law and not state can interfere with that.

The need for a more clear law is to avoid those that feel morally "responsible" to undermined what is already been established under the law.

Still the people can refused but they are expected to at least provide with help in how the person can obtain their prescription by other means.


It is the Board's belief that pharmacy policies and procedures could allow a pharmacist to exercise his or her choice to not participate, and at the same time not interfere with the patient's right to receive appropriate and lawfully prescribed drug therapy or drugs and devices approved by the U.S. FDA for restricted distribution by pharmacies. These may include dispensing of the prescription or drug or device by another pharmacist on site or arranging for the prescription to be dispensed by a pharmacist at another site.


So the problem is that many of this so call "morally" incline people working in this line of work will rather let the patients go away with not solutions to their problems.

I am glad that this is been addressed.

www.pharmacy.state.or.us...



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Ok let’s get something straight an abortion is not treatment, this is a human Life not Cancer, the doctor is not removing a tumor from a woman’s womb when performing an abortion, and in cases other then Rape or where the mothers life is in Danger they are removing a RESPONSPOSIBITY!

Forcing a doctor to do something that they feel is reprehensible is just Obama’s way of attacking Christianity! As others have stated there are plenty of places that lack moral fortitude that are happy to perform an abortion!

Why doesn’t the government just keep their nose out of this crap an leave it to the state, oh that’s right TOTAL control


[edit on 4/8/2009 by Verd_Vhett]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Verd_Vhett
 


I don't think that this has to do with forcing any doctor to commit and act or to provide treatment that they seem morally wrong in their personal views.

I don't think that is any laws that said that a doctor has to do what they government tells them to do.

Is more about providing choices and referrals to other doctors that will performs the treatments that they do not.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1

Same goes with men going to a urologist who won't perform a vasectomy. If the doctor won't perform the surgery due to moral objections, how secure is that doctor's practice going to be?

That's a check and balance in the capitalistic system. If you won't perform what the public will pay for, you won't stay in business. If you provide a wanted and profitable product or service, you will do well. In that respect, a doctor's practice is no different than any other small business.


I am all for doctors refusing to perform abortions, but that is about the only clear cut, black and white issue there is. Where is the line drawn on what doctors and/or pharmacists will and will not do in the name of morals?

That's what this thread is all about. And I'm still not 100% sure I know exactly where I come down on this, although I'm getting a lot of info.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Whether direct abortion is a “medical procedure” or not is indeed worthy of consideration. It is certainly accompanied by all the paraphernalia we associate with medical practice however identifying it as “healing” or “therapeutic” is difficult. The effort is made to identify it as therapeutic where psychological distress is named as a reason, but then the destruction of another human life can hardly be considered therapeutic for that entity and is certainly a more invasive solution for the “patient” than alternative treatments.

To absolve the physician of the judgement is to consider him/her as a “tool.” The physician is another human being who must have the right and ability to make decisions regarding his/her actions or we depersonalize them. To make it other wise is to reverse the inequality of citizens you refer to and leaves the physician as a mere tool. Now, as pointed out various times on this thread, it is all but impossible to be unaware of or unable to access services where abortions are possible though, of course, I wish it were otherwise. This variety, however, does give them the opportunity to go elsewhere. There is too a third individual in the equation the unborn, the current authorities may currently deny them citizenship but the US has done that before and treated others as a commodity in the past.

A physician refusing to refer for an abortion is not morally measuring the patient but the activity. The patient may “feel” judged but the physician is not condemning their entire life, instead he is choosing not to facilitate the condemnation to nothingness of another. Why should the physician, as a moral agent, take the chance with each patient that walks into their room that they will be obliged to facilitate murder? It only works if the physician is considered a tool, and a tool of the State or current moral mores.

The patient being the entire “purpose” of the existence of the doctor is again worthy of much exploration. For is the doctor again to be likened to a tool which must be obedient to the will of the next person to utilise him/her? Is someone seeking a direct abortion even a patient, might the doctor consider the imperilled human life of the unborn to be the patient – it is after all the one who’s life is in his/her hands.

The “clinical” examination of the ramifications of the logic is unworkable, because it is not a clinical, amoral, equation – it cannot be. The principle parties involved are persons with will and the ability to choose, unless that right is removed from them by statute. If this regulation prevails then perhaps indeed some might choose not to pursue their career, or, indeed might find the state decree that they are disbarred from using the talents and skills they have unless they surrender an intrinsic part of their humanity.

The language of menus and commerce associating itself with this discussion is troubling in that it commodifies not just a person’s work but the whole person. It is the culmination of that process by which people’s value is considered in terms of their economic contribution. A laissez faire approach to medicine will hardly be anymore successful than it has been to economics in general and particular. As we speak of introducing morality into the trading of stocks and credit does it strike anyone as odd that where human life is concerned an effort is being made to remove morality?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


Your last line/question was so compelling that I had to hurry to respond to that part...


As we speak of introducing morality into the trading of stocks and credit does it strike anyone as odd that where human life is concerned an effort is being made to remove morality?


INDEED!


---- in regards to the remainder of your post, I will attempt to answer further a bit later, for the moment I can not. Suffice to say your points are all well taken and present a strong argument for the issue to be explored more keenly and directly than I think our legislators are capable of (considering their tendency to offer little to no resistance to lobbyists and think-tank decrees). Frankly, I am no aficionado of popularism nor am I inclined to be an apologist for institutional intrusion into private matters - such as those between doctors and their patients.

If I don't make it back today to respond allow me to add...

Thank you very much for engaging in this discussion with me.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

This is a sticky slope because it opens the door to allowing doctors to refuse treatments they do not believe in or will not profit from based on backroom deals with pharmeceutical reps and companies to push their products which is a common practice. How many of you on here have been prescribed drugs you don't need, or been encouraged to suddenly switch brands by a doctor without due cause? And met with a hostile reaction when you questioned this?

Abortion is not the only procedure that is controversial in medical circles. Many holistic doctors discourage patients from recieving chemotherapy or other treatments that in many cases will prolong a patient's life. On the other hand most Western physicians will openly discourage you from seeking out alternative practitioners such as chiropractors or ayurvedic practitioners who can provide palliative care for much cheaper than a doctor and often without the side effects.

The really dangerous concept for me is that when socialized medicine is formally introduced doctors will have full license to make personal decisions regarding transplants and other lifesaving procedures based on a patient's lifestyle. Meaning if you have a history of drinking and drug taking, don't be to surprised the insurance company isn;t the only one turning you down for a new kidney a few decades down the line. Evr wonder why so many Canadians come to the US for nonelective surgeries?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
This is forcing abortion on people who believe it is Infanticide. It just does not get more evil than that.

If I forced a Muslim to eat Pork or starve, it would be the same mentality exactly.

Eventually they will do things that hurts everyone. For now they keep us fighting each other to distract us.

Our population would be shrinking were it not for immigrants so even population control is not the reason. It is a pure control issue. One Party has complete control so they are using this opportunity to force their beliefs on everyone and freedoms and the Constitution be damned.

...and they all had a good laugh about the Oath they took to uphold the Constitution over a nice cup of tea and a Cuban Cigar.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:35 PM
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.

On the contrary. In fact, the original Hippocratic oath actually includes the physician swearing NOT to perform an abortion:

en.wikipedia.org...



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.



You cannot ask a physician who believes that abortion is murder to perform an abortion. Furthermore, do you think a woman who knew that a doctor was against abortion, would want said doctor to perform the abortion? Do you REALLY?

What is the government going to do- put a gun to the doctor's head, and tell them to "abort"?

This is insanity. This would be struck down in the courts, before the first case ever came up. In addition, this would threaten conscientious objector's rights. The Democrats are hell-bent on instituting the draft again- Charlie Rangel won't give up, and by extension, Quakers and other religious groups would be forced to go to war and kill.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Ok, let leave the "abortion bandwagon park for now"

Listen carefully, already is laws in the US that protect any doctor of nurse from doing something that force them into committing any act of abortion against their will.

OK, please read my post again is laws already protecting doctors and nurses from been forced into performing abortions against their will.

Now you all smart people and with that said.

This not about forcing anybody to do abortions

But to prevent doctors from leaving patients that may request for information on whom can perform any procedure that they will not, base on personal or moral choices.

Plain and simple, This address the doctors that under their own believe no even prescribe themselves anti contraceptives and for many of you that don't think is true, yes is doctors that believes that anti conceptive are pills that causes monthly abortions.

Still I say the person seeking medical attention for any personal problem should let the fingers do the walking call first and ask if the doctor will perform a procedure or if he will be nice enough to refer to one that will do.

I mean any procedure not only plan B or abortions

End of the story and the Anti abortion rant.

After all the last time I check abortion is still very legal in the US and thank "god" for it.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Exactly.

Scientologists don't believe in psychiatric medications.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions.
Some Christians have problems with birth control, tubal ligations, vascetomies, etc.

Where is the line drawn with a "moral objection".

Abortion is not the issue here.....there are many other religious and moral objections this covers and some of them are basic medical care.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I consider myself moderately conservative. There are few issues that I side with the left on, and this is one of those issues.

Personally, I think before you get into the medical field you need to weigh everything that you can think of against your religious faith. If you can think of any conflicts at all, then I believe it's your obligation to change fields. That's it.

Patients arrive at a care facility (I'm not including abortion clinics in the definition of a "care facility" because clearly an abortion clinic is not a care facility) with the expectation of receiving medical treatment. This is the whole reason the facility exists in the first place. It should not be staffed with employees who refuse treatment to a patient in need based on their own beliefs. If an employee feels the need to refuse treatment then they need to step aside and let someone else handle it, and then the administrator of the facility needs to take the issue up with that employee on whether or not they still have a future there.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by sos37]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I do NOT believe some doctor should be allowed to deny treatment for ME because they dont believe it's morally right. That is pure BS. I actually did have this happen once at the ER. The Dr. basically told me to go home and meditate because he didnt believe in mental health. I flipped out on him. Who does he think he is?! I was there for help and he treated me like some low class drug addict. I was having major panic attacks and they were freaking me out and he didnt even help me. He said it must be cause I am a scorpio and we are hot tempered. Yeah PLEASE! Anyways....
I take one medication and one medication only and it has basically saved my life and if some dr refused to fill it because of their beliefs well lets just say they would have to call someone in to stop me from freaking out right in the store.
This bill is ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


The bill actually reverses Bush's stance with honoring moral objections.

The reversal kind of seems to take the moral objection out of the equation in some instances.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
It's too bad there wasn't a pharmacy tech that could give out the medicine instead of the pharmacist. I see both sides, ultimately the patient needs to get the medicine, it doesn't matter what the pharmacist thinks about this issue (same goes with gay-rights but that's another topic).

I know the hippocratic oath is for doctors but really is should apply to all health professionals. A pharmacist could argue that "do no harm" is violated since the baby is killed, which is fair.



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.


That's a bit unfair. And in this case, pharmacists are "saving people" since they aren't giving out a med that will kill the baby. I'm not saying that people shouldn't take the pill or whatever, but you have to understand the other side too.


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.


I have a hard time understanding that. I don't think they had a moral reason why they didn't do it, perhaps they just felt that medically is wouldn't help, otherwise they would have do it.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043

Listen carefully, already is laws in the US that protect any doctor of nurse from doing something that force them into committing any act of abortion against their will.

Yes, Marg, there are now laws that do this. But those laws can be changed, and that is what we are discussing.

Once the law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick as long as it was no thicker than his thumb. That is not the case today (thankfully). The law was changed. Once a store owner could keep live rattlesnakes in their store at night to dissuade would-be robbers. That is now considered assault. The law changed.

Don't get fooled into thinking that because something is written in the law today it will always be so. The only thing constant among society is change.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37

Personally, I think before you get into the medical field you need to weigh everything that you can think of against your religious faith. If you can think of any conflicts at all, then I believe it's your obligation to change fields. That's it.

Firstly, we are not just talking religion here. Somehow every conversation about abortion seems to turn into a debate on Christianity; I may be a Christian, but my objections toward abortion are not rooted only in that faith. They are moreso rooted in a genuine compassion for the children yet unborn, the most innocent among us.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who is not willing to forget their moral center, whatever that may entail, should not be allowed to become a doctor? There are other issues besides abortion: how about physician-assisted suicide? How about alternative medicine? How about herbal remedies?

Every person here has the ability to tell a doctor "You're fired; I want another doctor" at any time (I have fired more than I can count). And I would suggest they do just that, should their doctor appear to be unable to practice medicine on them effectively due to moral convictions. After all, if you took your car to a mechanic to have the transmission fixed and he said he didn't believe in transmissions, would you a) try to force him to fix it anyway, or b) find another mechanic?

This observation may be a bit off-topic, but I feel it does carry some pertinence: it is no wonder so many people are angry with capitalism; I am starting to believe they honestly don't know how to use it.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join