Conscience Schmoncience! Who cares what you believe?

Nurses Activism

Published

Not sure where this goes on allnurses. But since everyone has their own core beliefs that inform their nursing practice, I thought it would be interesting to more than just the political junkies.

Obama's Grave Assault on Medical Conscience Rights

by Kristan Hawkins

05/21/2011

Quote
During the past two years, Americans have seen the expansion of the federal government into sectors of their economy and personal life as never before. And earlier this year, the Obama administration quietly moved into a new area of American life, one of its most intimate, the patient-doctor relationship.

Like the Obama takeovers of the automobile industry, the banking industry and then the health care industry, the new conscience-rights assault is the administration's latest attempt to fundamentally change our nation as we know it.

In February, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the rescission of most of the Bush administration’s 2008 conscience protections, removing the rights of doctors, pharmacists and other medical professionals to object to prescribing or dispensing known abortifacient drugs such as Plan B and ella. This rescission sends a clear signal to medical professionals nationwide—leave your conscience at the door, and if you morally object to a medical procedure or medication, then you should be in another business.

When Students for Life, Medical Students for Life and other pro-life medical groups wrote to HHS about the rescission, the agency defended its decision and cited the federal definition of abortion, arguing that abortion-causing drugs such as Plan B and ella are not covered under the definition of abortion, and therefore doctors do not have the right to refuse to prescribe or dispense these dangerous drugs.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43627

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
My guess is that you would still want them to be forced to participate in order to keep their jobs and/or licenses to practice.

*** Using the word "forced" is inaccurate and creates a straw man argument. These people were hired to do a job. If they refuse to do their job then their employer should be free to fire them.

I am a nurse and my employer hired be to care for patients. If I refuse to take care of patients shouldn't my employer have the freedom to fire me and hire somebody willing to do the job they were hired to do?

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
This is not about doctors/phamacists/nurse-practioners being forced to educate patients about their options. This is about health professionals being forced to prescribe these drugs and fill the prescriptions.

*** So under the Bush rules it was OK to FORCE employers to keep employes who were refusing to do their jobs.. How is it OK to FORCE the owner of a pharmacy to continue to employ a pharmacist who is failing to do the job hired to do?

Seems this ruling is a huge victory for the personal liberty folks.

Excuse me, GHG and some others - - not everyone regrets their decisons. I had an abortion in 1978 and have no regrets. NONE. ... Not everyone has regrets. Or needs therapy. And everyone should be able to at least know what all their options are.

Ditto -- different reasons, different year, but elective TAb with no regrets. Not a single day. Most women don't have significant regrets or distress after the procedure -- but the anti-choice people keep pushing this propaganda because they want young women to believe this will ruin their lives forever.

When we become a country where each individual cannot decide what they will or won't do, according to their faith, I want to be dead.

Well, start planning your funeral :), because there are an awful lot of people in this country who want to make sure that individual women cannot decide "what they will or won't do, according to their faith," about their reproductive lives ...

I think it is telling that those who are anti-conscience, almost exclusively personalize the argument.

Nothing about my life should constrain your choices. (I may or may not be pro-choice, but I am pro-liberty.)

I would argue that you are the one "personalizing" the argument. An individual pharmacist's personal discomfort about my personal, private medical decisions is more important than the rest of my life?? Why is it any of her/his business whatsoever?? What other legal, legitimate medications or procedures ordered by my physician am I not allowed to have because some third party individual has a "moral" problem with my choice? How is setting additional. barriers in the way of women exercising their individual rights not "constraining (their) choices"??

If a medication is legal but the government tells medical professionals that they can all refuse to give it to me, how is that personal freedom? Seems like it is government power standing in the way of personal freedom.

Why does the personal freedom of a medical professional trump the freedom of a patient?

Also, the medical professional can be morally against the Plan B pill if they want to be- it is not them who will be taking the pill. Why can't people let their religious beliefs dictate their own behavior without worrying about everybody else's?

I LOVE this......

Specializes in Med-Surg, Cardiac.

It's easy to argue about abortion because it's hard to see a few cells as a human being. But how about euthanasia? Say you've got a sick old person, or a handicapped young person lying in your bed and some law was passed that permits MDs to euthanize such people. Would you as a nurse have a right to refuse to administer the meds based on your conscience? From what I read in this forum, most people would say that it's your job to kill 'em and if you don't want to do it you should be fired. It's the same argument and it has happened before in Germany in the 30s and 40s.

Specializes in LTC Rehab Med/Surg.

If you sift through all the posts and all the arguments it just comes down to an abortion issue. For and against. Pro choice people don't want Pro life people to be conscientious objectors. They want Pro life people to be compelled to join the Pro choice party.

Just the way I see it.

If you park your conscience at the door when you go to work, eventually you'll forget to pick it up on the way home.

It's easy to argue about abortion because it's hard to see a few cells as a human being. But how about euthanasia? Say you've got a sick old person, or a handicapped young person lying in your bed and some law was passed that permits MDs to euthanize such people. Would you as a nurse have a right to refuse to administer the meds based on your conscience? From what I read in this forum, most people would say that it's your job to kill 'em and if you don't want to do it you should be fired. It's the same argument and it has happened before in Germany in the 30s and 40s.

As a nurse, I respect my patient's decisions. If I were to disagree on moral grounds, I would ask another provider to take over, not simply refuse to give the med. My patients come to me for nursing expertise, not judgment.

Specializes in LTC Rehab Med/Surg.
As a nurse, I respect my patient's decisions. If I were to disagree on moral grounds, I would ask another provider to take over, not simply refuse to give the med. My patients come to me for nursing expertise, not judgment.

But in asking another nurse to take over, aren't you in essence refusing to give the med? And if that's ok, why not the Pharmacist, or doctor or whoever has ethical problems with certain meds or procedures?

The issue is denying care, treatment or information to the patient based on personal belief. A pharmacist in New Hampshire, for example, twice refused to dispense Plan B. His employer adopted a corporate policy that requires employees to refer the patient to someone else if they object on moral grounds. To me, however, the most important issue is not withholding information about options from the patient.

In my reading of this string (and you can... will... correct me if I'm wrong) I cannot find one instance where a the pro-rights respondent is advocating/approving the active obstruction of a person's access to a drug. I see pro-freedom nurses affirming that they WILL provide information to patients, and when possible facilitate referrals.

This is the meme people are using, the straw man they are slaying. The charge is that pro-personal-rights people want to keep patients ignorant and see to it they CAN NEVER get the morning after pill or an abortion.

You understand, I hope that there are people that are completely consistent, thorough-going pro-choice advocates who vote against social conservatives because they believe the Bill of Rights applies to everyone. These would be your natural allies... with this one exception. When they say pro-choice they mean, pro-choice for everyone.

This is foolish from a strategic standpoint. Polling indicates almost all demographics in America no longer approve of all-abortion, all-of-the-time-regardless-of-viabilitiy. You're losing that argument.

So, to add to your difficulties in the realm of popular perception, now you want to highlight health care professionals being barred from their jobs and being threatened with the loss of their licenses. Oh, yeah... that's going to win you LOTS of votes. The 20% of Americans who have lost their jobs in the last couple of years are really going to admire your political purity.

If you cannot compromise on this, you risk being perceived (rightfully, in my view) as the shrill, inflexible fundamentalists demanding that everyone bow before the shrine of abortion rights OR ELSE! Think about it. Every substantive step in your direction has been via the courts, or executive fiat. You can't win... with these tactics...in the court of popular opinion.

Specializes in Medical.
Every woman I've known who has deliberately had her baby aborted has been wracked with guilt afterwards - and I know some who had illegal abortions almost fifty years ago. They have never got over it.

This assumes that you know about every termination every woman you know has had, which is not necessarily the case; I would certainly have some reservations talking with people I knew to be pro-life about a termination I'd chosen to have. However, talk of abortion pulls this topic away from the point - as has been stated several times, the medications in question prevent implantation but do not cause an implanted fetus to abort.

Specializes in Medical.
If it did cause the embryo to undergo apoptosis (in other words, suppose its mechanism of action was on the embryo and not the endometrium) do you think doctors/pharmacists could refuse on moral grounds to prescribe/fill it?

Are we supposed to be talking about hypothetical cases here, or focusing on facts in evidence? There's no move to mandate the compulsory administration of abortofacients and I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that any such law could pass in the US; it's this kind of whipping up of hypothetical slippery slopes that causes irrational responses to sensible solutions.

+ Add a Comment