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 a nurse is working in a hospital and is pulled d/t a call in in the abortion clinic if she believed that this is the murder of another human being why would she be required to assist
she did not hire on to this, she works in another part of the hospital
one of the larger hospitals in our area is roman catholic, they will not be a party to abortions, if they are refused government reinbursement there will be many patients who will suffer that are in the hospital for accidents, surgeries, heart/stroke ect that have nothing to due with abortions
a doctor who joins an ob-gyn clinic where some of the other doctors also do abortions should not be required to take on patients who want the abortions..this is a matter of individual rights and the rights of the woman wanting an abortion can not trump the rights of a caregiver who chooses not to assist for what ever the reason
if a nurse is working in a hospital and is pulled d/t a call in in the abortion clinic if she believed that this is the murder of another human being why would she be required to assist
she did not hire on to this, she works in another part of the hospital
one of the larger hospitals in our area is roman catholic, they will not be a party to abortions, if they are refused government reinbursement there will be many patients who will suffer that are in the hospital for accidents, surgeries, heart/stroke ect that have nothing to due with abortions
a doctor who joins an ob-gyn clinic where some of the other doctors also do abortions should not be required to take on patients who want the abortions..this is a matter of individual rights and the rights of the woman wanting an abortion can not trump the rights of a caregiver who chooses not to assist for what ever the reason
While you can make that case for abortion, as it's hardly ever medically necessary, your case fails for oral contraceptives, blood products, or anything else medically in the patient's best interests.
In my opinion, the provider's conscience should be respected up to the point where it prevents the patient from receiving a needed service. In hospital settings, the ability to find another nurse to provide the service is almost always there and nurses conscientious objections should be respected.
But note that this also applies to contraception. Out here in the west, where distances are large and there are lots of widely scattered small towns, a pharmacist who refused to dispense contraceptives could effectively make contraceptives unavailable to the women in his community, which is not acceptable.
As professionals, our final duty is to the patient and we are not there to judge our patients, but to serve them. If our objections to a given facet of care can be accommodated, they should be - but not at the cost of denying care to the patient.
The Bush Administration will do anything to advance it's agendas--however perverted, corrupt, irrational, or ill-conceived.
This has been borne out innumerable times in the last 8 years. If you disagree, you've either been living in a cave or in a coma.
Hypocaffeinemia is the rational voice in this discussion. His thoughts are not bumper-sticker proclamations, the kind so loved by politicians looking to persuade the gullible and/or uninformed.
Once again, this administration is attempting to silence anything that their ideological base abhors.
To paraphrase Clinton and hypocaff., "It's the patient, stupid," not us. If that, somehow, sounds unbalanced, then you need to re-evaluate your practice.
Once again, this administration is attempting to silence anything that their ideological base abhors.
This rule does not silence those who have no problem with certain practices. It protects those who do have a problem with certain practices. Quite a difference.
Your use of, "protection" makes everything sound righteous and balanced.
Many laws and signing statements of this administration have been used to protect the interest of the few while many others suffer the fallout.
For example, some drug research information was under the control of political appointees over the voices of concerned scientists in an attempt to allow profits to be unhindered by negative information
"Protecting" the rights of the few, in this case, results in not only misuse of information but absolves the professional--in the case of pharmacists--of his/her duty to serve any and all those who require their expertise and knowledge allowing ideology to trump the common good.
This administration has been about bullying from day one.
It's been their way or risk being dishonored or labeled something ugly.
Again, anyone failing to find confirmation of the multiple success and attempts to dumb down this great country is either profiting or in denial.
No, it is not at all, "my way", but the way things have been conducted for eight years.
You certainly don;t have any reason to believe me. But in order or you to flesh out the facts, you will have to spend many hours researching the underbelly of this presidency.
You can start neutral sources such as with the archives at Factcheck.org and/or any number of Frontline reports for starters.
Problem is, many people haven't the time or are not willing to take or make the time to seek out neutral investigative reporting. They're boring, dense and in these cases, often too unbelievable and upsetting for the average person to take seriously.
Maybe these people shouldn't work in a hospital all together, where moral/ethical issues are commonplace... People need to face the fact that these types of situations and behaviors happen where ever you are (even in church).
I don't understand how someone, as a healthcare professional, could ethically/morally agree that it is ok to withhold information on available options to a patient because of THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS, not the pts. How can you practice as a nurse when your beliefs are in direct conflict with the philosophies of nursing and standards of pt. care?
Sheesh
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.
towntalker
88 Posts
there are two sides to every argument
if a nurse is working in a hospital and is pulled d/t a call in in the abortion clinic if she believed that this is the murder of another human being why would she be required to assist
she did not hire on to this, she works in another part of the hospital
one of the larger hospitals in our area is roman catholic, they will not be a party to abortions, if they are refused government reinbursement there will be many patients who will suffer that are in the hospital for accidents, surgeries, heart/stroke ect that have nothing to due with abortions
a doctor who joins an ob-gyn clinic where some of the other doctors also do abortions should not be required to take on patients who want the abortions..this is a matter of individual rights and the rights of the woman wanting an abortion can not trump the rights of a caregiver who chooses not to assist for what ever the reason