Regulation Proposed to Help Protect Health Care Providers from Discrimination

Published

"The US Department of Health and Human Services announces a new proposed rule aimed at protecting health care workers who object to abortion or birth control from having to perform their jobs."

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821a.html

A new proposed regulation would increase awareness of, and compliance with, three separate laws protecting federally funded health care providers' right of conscience. This proposed rule was placed on public display at the Federal Register today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."

Over the past three decades, Congress has enacted several statutes to safeguard these freedoms, also known as provider conscience rights, and the proposed regulation would increase awareness of and compliance with these laws. Specifically, the proposed rule would:

  • Clarify that non-discrimination protections apply to institutional health care providers as well as to individual employees working for recipients of certain funds from HHS;
  • Require recipients of certain HHS funds to certify their compliance with laws protecting provider conscience rights;
  • Designate the HHS Office for Civil Rights as the entity to receive complaints of discrimination addressed by the existing statutes and the proposed regulation; and
  • Charge HHS officials to work with any state or local government or entity that may be in violation of existing statutes and the proposed regulation to encourage voluntary steps to bring that government or entity into compliance with the law. If, despite the Department's efforts, compliance is not achieved, HHS officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CDI Supervisor; Formerly NICU.

"The US Department of Health and Human Services announces a new proposed rule aimed at protecting health care workers who object to abortion or birth control from having to perform their jobs."

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821a.html

A new proposed regulation would increase awareness of, and compliance with, three separate laws protecting federally funded health care providers' right of conscience. This proposed rule was placed on public display at the Federal Register today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."

Over the past three decades, Congress has enacted several statutes to safeguard these freedoms, also known as provider conscience rights, and the proposed regulation would increase awareness of and compliance with these laws. Specifically, the proposed rule would:

  • Clarify that non-discrimination protections apply to institutional health care providers as well as to individual employees working for recipients of certain funds from HHS;
  • Require recipients of certain HHS funds to certify their compliance with laws protecting provider conscience rights;
  • Designate the HHS Office for Civil Rights as the entity to receive complaints of discrimination addressed by the existing statutes and the proposed regulation; and
  • Charge HHS officials to work with any state or local government or entity that may be in violation of existing statutes and the proposed regulation to encourage voluntary steps to bring that government or entity into compliance with the law. If, despite the Department's efforts, compliance is not achieved, HHS officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

Heh.

If you don't want to perform an abortion, you don't accept a job where such a thing is required of you.

If you don't want to prescribe or dispense birth control, you don't go into a profession where you would be placed in such a position.

If you don't want to order or administer blood products, you don't go into a profession where such is the standard of practice.

If you don't want to wear pants to work, you don't accept jobs were pants are a requirement.

You don't whine "discrimination" without knowing what the word means.

I can't believe this is an issue for some people.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

This is an interesting article from the Washington Post on the subject:

Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082103218

The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds.

The regulation remains broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception and other forms of contraception, and explicitly allows workers to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere.

From the comments section:

This law is a slippery slope.

From the article: "'For example, a nurse who assists in the performance of surgical procedures; an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be considered to assist in the performance of the abortion,' the regulation states." I take this to mean that the minimum-wage guy working in the hospital lab, who receives a tray holding a cut up fetus and is ordered to dump it in the trash and clean the tray, would be able to refuse the order and keep his job. Or the assistant who transports the patient to and from the OR. All could be interpretted as assisting in the abortion procedure, and could refuse with full protection from this law.

Try substituting a different scenario -- say Blood Transfusion or organ transplant - both are against several religious practices.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

This proposed regulation has me riled up enough I just wrote a longer blogpost about it here.

To sum up my thoughts: The patient's right to have the best care possible can be severely hamstrung by "violations of personal conscience" on the part of the healthcare worker.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

If you don't want to be sexually harrassed then don't take a job where that might occur. If you don't want to be discriminated against then don't accept a job where that might happen. If you don't want to be sexually assaulted then don't where skimpy clothing. I can't believe these are issues for some people either.

Heh.

If you don't want to perform an abortion, you don't accept a job where such a thing is required of you.

If you don't want to prescribe or dispense birth control, you don't go into a profession where you would be placed in such a position.

If you don't want to order or administer blood products, you don't go into a profession where such is the standard of practice.

If you don't want to wear pants to work, you don't accept jobs were pants are a requirement.

You don't whine "discrimination" without knowing what the word means.

I can't believe this is an issue for some people.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
If you don't want to be sexually harrassed then don't take a job where that might occur. If you don't want to be discriminated against then don't accept a job where that might happen. If you don't want to be sexually assaulted then don't where skimpy clothing. I can't believe these are issues for some people either.

Wow. You totally missed the point on this.

Last I checked, "sexual discrimination" isn't a job requirement nor is it a standard of care.

I think there just might be a difference between the two things.

Edit: But, yeah, I can flow with your examples, too. I don't think anybody should take a job as a stripper if they can't handle sexual taunts coming their way.

I'd like to think we're intelligent people capable of making informed decisions with regards to our careers, rather than whining to the gub'ment every time one's naive illusions are shattered.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I just don't understand this. I am a labor and delivery nurse and I refuse to do abortions. (the only abortions my facility will perform is non compatable with life/quality of life babies) We don't do "convience" abortions. This has NEVER been an issue for me as my employer knows I won't be the primary nurse for these pateints. However, if this pt has a retained placenta and needs to go to the OR for a D&C I DO NOT believe I have the right not to help. If the nurse calls out and asks for someone to being something into the room i.e. a bag of fluid or meds.....or whatever. I would never NOT HELP....

Just my 2 cents

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CDI Supervisor; Formerly NICU.

So, since Catholics/Christians don't generally believe in abortions, some you you fellas don't think Catholics should be nurses...is that what I'm reading here?

Should no Seventh Day Adventists be nurses, since nurses might have to transfuse blood?

Oh, and now religious beliefs/moral beliefs are "naive illusions", are they? People who have these beliefs should accept them being "shattered", but don't you dare interfere with the woman who believes her fetus is just a soulless bundle of cells...amirite?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
If you don't want to be sexually harrassed then don't take a job where that might occur. If you don't want to be discriminated against then don't accept a job where that might happen. If you don't want to be sexually assaulted then don't where skimpy clothing. I can't believe these are issues for some people either.

CRNA2007, you may be the greatest poster ever!!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
So, since Catholics/Christians don't generally believe in abortions, some you you fellas don't think Catholics should be nurses...is that what I'm reading here?

Note: I'm an atheist that doesn't believe in abortions (in the majority of cases).

What I'm saying is that if assisting in abortions is a situation you are expected to face by choosing a certain job, you should not be protected under discrimination laws when you elect to refuse it:

A physician shouldn't accept an obstetric residency if they refuse to perform even non-elective and the rare medically necessary ones.

A nurse shouldn't take a surgical position at an abortion clinic if they refuse to assist in the procedure.

A pharmacist shouldn't take a position where they will be in a position to dispense drugs in their formulary they refuse to dispense out of personal and not professional reasons.

This is common sense, and individuals that knowingly choose to accept a position where they will likely have scenarios that conflict with their beliefs should not be protected from discrimination.

A traditional Muslim female is not discriminated against when she is let go from her bikini model job because she refuses to wear a bikini. It's exactly the same thing.

Should no Seventh Day Adventists be nurses, since nurses might have to transfuse blood?

Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses should certainly give a great deal of thought before entering a profession where standards of care go against their religious beliefs. If they elect to enter nursing they should choose a specialty where such conflicts are minimal to non-existent.

Oh, and now religious beliefs/moral beliefs are "naive illusions", are they?

I believe you have unfortunately misread my post.

The naive illusions belong to those who think they are being discriminated against by choosing a job that conflicts with their beliefs. Specifically, the naive illusion is that their job will work around them to accomodate their belief regardless of how much they ask their employer to stretch.

It isn't about us. It's about the patient. A patient deserves the standard of care, and doesn't deserve to suffer due to a caregiver's personal beliefs.

If personal beliefs conflict with patient care, patient care wins. Period, end of story. If anyone disagrees with this mantra, they quite frankly need to leave the profession.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
CRNA2007, you may be the greatest poster ever!!!

Since you agree with him, perhaps you'd care to demonstrate how "sexual discrimination" is a job requirement or standard of care.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion