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.
If you're going to act like a child, I'll move on down the road and leave you to your discussion.
I was demonstrating my point that it's about the patient. You said I sounded like administration, but I was imagining myself as the poor guy on the table in need of some blood and some care.
Seems fair to me. I am going to be a nurse, but needles, blood, urine, poo, talking to people, and charting are against my beliefs. So give me my job and don't make me do any of these things or I will sue you for discrimination. I expect all of my co-workers to chip in and "help" during my shift so I don't compromise my belief system. Sure I could have picked a different career path, but I like to help people!
Maybe we should expand this to meds we don't like to give. Lactulose, Lasix, and especially those pesky drugs that you have to keep monitoring all the time?
There are jobs out there for waitresses, police and a wide variety of others. My guess is that all of them do things they don't like.
The question is: Is it against your moral code or values system? Don't take a job you can't or won't do.
I abstain from drinking and drug use, and I have strong personal beliefs about others doing it (to extremes mostly) but would I refuse to take care of a pt because they drove drunk? Absolutely not. Its not my place to judge them, only care for them and hope to get them well enough to understand the implications of their actions.
These religious whackos that think compromising pt care for their own beliefs is acceptable need to gtfo and find a new career.
To me the whole issue with regards to the HHS proposed regulations is one of a certain segment of society (with a minority view) trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. This should be an individual employee/employer issue that needs to be discussed prior to employment.
We do have religious freedom in this country. Part of the cost of that freedom is to respect other peoples beliefs and not try to impose our beliefs on them nor to demonize them for believing differentl.
Healthcare providers are members of a service profession and one's commitment should be to his/her patients not him/herself whether doctors, nurses, techs, etc. When working in the medical field providers have to respect other people's choices whether they like them or not. All healthcare students are warned early on in training that if they can't put aside their personal beliefs and do what is right by the patient healthcare probably isn't a good career choice. If you don't believe in blood donation you don't work at a blood bank and so on, and while working there, you shouldn't be excused from work required in your job description because afterall you are the one who decided to work in that particular place.
Require recipients of certain HHS funds to certify their compliance with laws protecting provider conscience rights;
Here, the legislation says that in order to receive federal funding, a facility is required to certify that they will not discriminate against providers who refuse to perform or provide abortions or contraception.
Not a big deal for most settings-- on a OB unit in a hospital, you can refuse to provide or participate in abortion, or choose to work in a facility that shares your philosophy, like a Catholic hospital.
The problem here is that publicly-funded birth control clinics and abortion centres would be stripped of their funding if they fire of refuse to hire some one who doesn't do contraception or abortion. So if a nurse who is otherwise most experienced and qualified, but anti-contraception /abortion applies for a job in a birth control clinic, the clinic would be punished if they do not hire that nurse. If a nurse, even if he or she is employed in a setting whose purpose is to provide contraception or abortion refuses to provide these services, the clinic could not let them go.
Forces abortion clinics to hire or retain anti-abortion employees-- and opens the door for anti-abortion/contraception nurses using the legislation to roadblock federally-funded birth control/abortion clinics.
I wonder what happens if an unconscious patient arrives in an emergency room bleeding to death, and the only physician on call is a Jehovah's Witness who opposes blood transfusions.
I see where the doc can now legally refuse to transfuse, so shouldn't that be interpretted as "no doctor available" who can save the patient's life? Who's the next in the chain of command who can make decisions? Could a nurse take the reins and order the transfusion? Or does this law allow the doctor to prevent other people who don't share his beliefs from treating "his patient"?
The "what if" questions are endless.
from Wikipedia:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits eating blood, and that this includes the storage and transfusion of blood, including in cases of emergency....violation of this doctrine is a serious offense.
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.
I have a friend who is a Jehova's Witness and we have spoken on this matter of conscience several times. She would actually love to be a nurse so that she could become a CRNA, but she has decided to abandon that dream because she knows that in nursing school and in her requisite ICU experience she would be required to assist with blood transfusions and blood products and that is a matter of conscience for her, so she CHOSE not to pursue it.
She likened it to Gambling, her religion doesn't believe in gambling, so she would never take a job as a black-jack dealer in a casino...but if there were no other jobs available, then she might consider a job as a housekeeper or cashier in a casino.
Interestingly enough she also states that a matter of conscience is a purely personal decision (at least for Jehova's witnesses) so while her religion would prohibit HER from personally accepting a blood transfusion, they would not prohibit her from ASSISTING with one as long as her conscience could handle it. I found that very interesting. She told me there are a few nurses in her church who do assist with blood products and the church supports them.
I have a friend who is a Jehova's Witness and we have spoken on this matter of conscience several times. She would actually love to be a nurse so that she could become a CRNA, but she has decided to abandon that dream because she knows that in nursing school and in her requisite ICU experience she would be required to assist with blood transfusions and blood products and that is a matter of conscience for her, so she CHOSE not to pursue it.
She likened it to Gambling, her religion doesn't believe in gambling, so she would never take a job as a black-jack dealer in a casino...but if there were no other jobs available, then she might consider a job as a housekeeper or cashier in a casino.
Interestingly enough she also states that a matter of conscience is a purely personal decision (at least for Jehova's witnesses) so while her religion would prohibit HER from personally accepting a blood transfusion, they would not prohibit her from ASSISTING with one as long as her conscience could handle it. I found that very interesting. She told me there are a few nurses in her church who do assist with blood products and the church supports them.
This is a case of taking personal responsibility for one's choices and your friend should be applauded.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
We work with a wonderful RN who is Jehovahs Witness and does not administer blood.
She is not assigned fresh open heart or acute GI bleed patients.
On the rare occasion her patient needs blood or blood products one of us trades patients or administers the blood.
She helps all of us all the time. WE work together.
I know a pro-life L&D nurse at another hospital. When management decided that C-Sections and abortions would be done in her unit rather than the main OR all the staff worked with their union, management, and nursing staff regarding training and experience.
The schedule now ensures that the nurses who signed a statement would not be assigned to abortions.
hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN
1,381 Posts
I was demonstrating my point that it's about the patient. You said I sounded like administration, but I was imagining myself as the poor guy on the table in need of some blood and some care.