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

ISo the uneducated want to rush to correct "the mistake" while it still isn't a child ...

"The uneducated"???? Wow ....

Let me ask you, would you also say that all Muslims should not be allowed to attend college to become healthcare professionals unless they agree to abandon any aspect of their faith that conflicts with the policies and procedures. If a nurse took a job at a prison and later was told they had to start assisting in executions, would you say they should be terminated if they refused. What if legislation changed and assisted suicide or euthenasia became legal, and the facility you work at started doing them. If they told you it was now part of your job to inject the patient to terminate their life, would you still say do it or leave would be acceptable. Many providers started in the profession before this pill was legal. Extreme situations perhaps, but I don't think its as cut and dried as do it or quit. I am really conflicted on my own beliefs, I feel abortion at will is wrong, but I don't feel so strongly or clearly that i feel I have the right to say it is wrong for someone else to choose it. When does life begin, all I have is my opinion. Forcing people to do something as personal as this is a slippery slope to head down. Is the right to choose limited to the woman wanting an abortion and not the woman not wanting to be part of what she sees as murder? Hard hard questions with no absolute answer.

Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
The problem occurs when a pharmacist chooses to work for a business that sells this med, and then decides that he will not sell it.

*** Well said. I just wanted it posted again.

But what about the ones that were already working before it came out, are you really going to have a policy that if you worked before this date you don't have to dispense this but if you started after this date you have to? Is that how we would propose to handle this. Would any one reading this feel comfortable giving their employer carte blanche right to determine what they will and require you to do regardless of your moral or ethical position. Again, if the law changed would you think even the position that nurses working before 5/24/2011 don't have to assist in suicides but those working after do would be acceptable?

"The uneducated"???? Wow ....

Yes. The Uneducated. That is what the pro-abortion group wanted. Don't let them know that it has all the parts of a person yet. In doing so, they will still abort. It is the LEFT that promoted this...NOT the right. :p

Let me ask you, would you also say that all Muslims should not be allowed to attend college to become healthcare professionals unless they agree to abandon any aspect of their faith that conflicts with the policies and procedures. If a nurse took a job at a prison and later was told they had to start assisting in executions, would you say they should be terminated if they refused. What if legislation changed and assisted suicide or euthenasia became legal, and the facility you work at started doing them. If they told you it was now part of your job to inject the patient to terminate their life, would you still say do it or leave would be acceptable. Many providers started in the profession before this pill was legal. Extreme situations perhaps, but I don't think its as cut and dried as do it or quit. I am really conflicted on my own beliefs, I feel abortion at will is wrong, but I don't feel so strongly or clearly that i feel I have the right to say it is wrong for someone else to choose it. When does life begin, all I have is my opinion. Forcing people to do something as personal as this is a slippery slope to head down. Is the right to choose limited to the woman wanting an abortion and not the woman not wanting to be part of what she sees as murder? Hard hard questions with no absolute answer.

Such a lefist attack. I said that the left will promote the Muslim wearing a head scarf yet when a CHRISTIAN wants to say that they conform to their faith, the LEFT wants to force them to do otherwise in the interest of "freedom" of NON-religion. Hypocritical....don't you think?

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

allnurses.com post mentioned in this AJN Ethics article - http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/journalarticleprint.asp?Article_ID=573335

I am pro life. choose med-surg and then critical care because I could not assist in an abortion.

Would never participate in lethal injection, IVF, or assisted suicide.

If I were a pharmacist I would not work where part of the job description is dispensing 'morning after pills'

Before Roe v Wade I cared for a woman who became septic after an illegal abortion. She died. I've no problem caring for a woman who has had an abortion.

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
But what about the ones that were already working before it came out, are you really going to have a policy that if you worked before this date you don't have to dispense this but if you started after this date you have to? Is that how we would propose to handle this. Would any one reading this feel comfortable giving their employer carte blanche right to determine what they will and require you to do regardless of your moral or ethical position. Again, if the law changed would you think even the position that nurses working before 5/24/2011 don't have to assist in suicides but those working after do would be acceptable?

You choose whether you want to continuing working for them or not.

No one guarantees that when you start to work somewhere, that nothing will ever change. The founders of Walmart made a vow that they would never open on a Sunday and they would never sell alcoholic beverages. They now excel at both despite the word of their founder.

If you hold certain beliefs as absolutely true, you often have to make sacrifices to hold to it. That is what principled people do. No one said it was easy, just as people of Faith have never had it "easy".

I had 7 years seniority in a hospital that I loved, and coworkers that I cared about. Something serious changed in my workplace, and it became obvious that the change was not for the better. I had a choice of deal or leave behind the friends and the place. I left.

Thankfully, it turned out to be the best choice, though painful at the time. To a certain extent, I feel G-d forced my hand by the change to follow a better path.

Carolladybelle, excellent point, I could not agree with you more. As long as someone is willing to accept that when they are on the end of the decision that requires them to make that choice, I could not agree more. My problem is more with those that choose to say this person should either do it or leave, but chooses to change the answer when it falls on them. If one says they should do it or leave, and should as in the example assisted suicide become legal and I be forced to choose, I will support the facilities right to set the rules and leave if I feel that strongly...consistant. You have taken my argument away.

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.

I have a belief that things happen for a reason- that we are meant to go through change as a means for spiritual growth. My leaving required me to grow spiritually and psychologically.

Specializes in Geriatrics, Home Health.
Such a lefist attack. I said that the left will promote the Muslim wearing a head scarf yet when a CHRISTIAN wants to say that they conform to their faith, the LEFT wants to force them to do otherwise in the interest of "freedom" of NON-religion. Hypocritical....don't you think?

Religious headgear (which Christians don't have, unless you're a nun or the Pope) does not affect patient care. Refusal to prescribe or dispense certain meds, or perform certain procedures, because of religious beliefs affects patient care.

I think most people with particular sensitivities will avoid situations that they know will put them in moral conflict. The problem with the abortifacients is that the federal rule effects every pharmacist. Every single dispensing pharmacists. So it is a bigger deal than the fact that I need to avoid jobs at Planned Parenthood. There are people who are devout Mormons, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and serious Muslims who are or would like to go to pharmacy school but are giving it second thoughts.

If the problem is a lack of pharmacists in a rural community (50 mile radius) are you helping pregnant teen-aged girls by driving one of them out of practice. 'Cause non-pregnant teenagers are going to need antibiotics, and elderly people are going to need their lisinopril, and the farmer who wrenched his back is going to need vicodin and flexeril, and so on.

Your hypothetical pregnant teenager probably makes the drive into town to the Walmart pretty frequently and doesn't feel put-upon because she has to make that trip to get ordinary things. Rite Aid has looked at that little rural community and determined they can't make money there. But an independent pharmacist has been there for a while. So, because 16 year old Suzie can't get her Plan B from that store, take that pharmacists license from him (serves him right! don't ya' know) and make all the old folks drive into town for their Aricept and Coreg. Now the farmer with the bad back has to load himself into his pick-up and drive 100 miles round trip to get pain relief.

Somehow, I don't think enforcing this rule makes medications more readily available to Americans. I think it does the opposite.

huh? what?? Oh, nevermind. :-)

+ Add a Comment