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.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
I volunteer at Red Cross blood drives. Sign people up too. I've donated gallons.
I would NEVER sneak a blood product on a patient who for religious and/or moral belief is that it is wrong to accept blood.
I have advocated for patients at 3:00 am to prevent this being done because we must advocate for the wishes of our patients.
I also would not allow a patient to be denied a blood product due to a providers moral opinion. We must also advocate in the best interest of our patients.
i think you have hit the nail on the head...patients have rights, healthcare workers have rights, and when in question it is best to err on the side of the patient if it is an emergent situation.
otherwise, there are other pharmacies for "plan b", others md's to perform that abortion, other nurses to hang the blood.
ps..appreciate the return to the subject and the absence of ad hominem attacks that overshadow the matter at hand.
i think you have hit the nail on the head...patients have rights, healthcare workers have rights, and when in question it is best to err on the side of the patient if it is an emergent situation.
otherwise, there are other pharmacies for "plan b", others md's to perform that abortion, other nurses to hang the blood.
ps..appreciate the return to the subject and the absence of ad hominem attacks that overshadow the matter at hand.
it's more than just emergent situations. for instance, oral contraceptive agents are the standard treatment for many gynecological diseases. if a patient visits a doctor practitioner who diagnoses such a disease and isn't prescribed oral contraceptives nor is the patient even informed that oral contraceptives are successful in treating their disease, i believe the practitioner has committed malpractice and shouldn't be protected by the fact they are morally opposed to oral contraceptives.
under this regulation a practitioner doesn't even have to refer necessary treatment.
. if a patient visits a doctor practitioner who diagnoses such a disease and isn't prescribed oral contraceptives nor is the patient even informed that oral contraceptives are successful in treating their disease, i believe the practitioner has committed malpractice and shouldn't be protected by the fact they are morally opposed to oral contraceptives.
quote]
i agree, there is a moral obligation to state that "there are other options that i am personally opposed to for moral reasons, i am referring you to my colleage dr. soandso to discuss these".
along those lines, when i was a public health nurse and had a patient with a positive pregnancy test who didn't sing and dance about happy they were, and when was their first ob visit, i would always send in a fellow rn to discuss options. this was brought up before i was hired and was a non-issue otherwise. i could not compromise my moral standing or my patient's legal right for informaion.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
A wonderful physician refuses to give up everything.
Even with a patient >90, metastatic CA, comatose, ventilated, vasoactive drips and all will not get a discussion about code status or comfort care from him. When aske he says, "I witnessed a miracke and don't want to be the one to blame if there could be one for this patient."
RNs call the ethics committee and a family conference.
When asked this MD politely signs off the case. He often recommends a colleague.
If I can survive with some quality of life and need his specialty I will be relieved if he is my doctor.
If I'm terminal I want the ethics committee.
But then I have my advance directive and family conversation. He will sign off terminal patients cases when they have this.
I think when a pharmacist refuses to fill legal prescriptions it is that persons responsibility to only work where other alternatives are available for those patients.
Interleukin, sometimes when people live in small tight little worlds and their world view is suddenly challenged by equality, open-mindedness, confidence, and optimism, it is very threatnening as you have well learned from this exchange. You can also learn from this and other posts that refusal to respect other's views is met staunchly with a declaration of millitary service... You know the old John McSame method..
It's funny and sad all at the same time.. But keep challenging....
Just a final word as this is devolving into what I expected when one's opponent is big on bluster but wholly uninformed.
Typically, the side will resort to throwing in a bunch of wild, irrational, emotionally charged bumper-sticker retorts which have about as much to do with advancing the position as as does the harvest of Granny Smith Apples on Pluto.
Yes well said, the same was done to me by the same member. And yes the claims made were just as irrational and nonsensical. My pro-choice status and support of obama, rendered me young, naive, a black baby killer, and.... drum role please... bi-polar. This is just someone I think is quite bitter and threatned by "crazy ole librils" Whatever. I even tried to reconcile when my posts were met by more nonsensical and rude replies at every turn, but no, this poster was determined to stick it to me.
So it became really clear that my level of discourse and willingness to meet half way far exceeded that empty shell of angry and condescending rants and raves.. Nothing there.. empty, as empty as bar after 2... It's too bad.
Yes well said, the same was done to me by the same member. And yes the claims made were just as irrational and nonsensical. My pro-choice status and support of obama, rendered me young, naive, a black baby killer, and.... drum role please... bi-polar. This is just someone I think is quite bitter and threatned by "crazy ole librils" Whatever. I even tried to reconcile when my posts were met by more nonsensical and rude replies at every turn, but no, this poster was determined to stick it to me.
So it became really clear that my level of discourse and willingness to meet half way far exceeded that empty shell of angry and condescending rants and raves.. Nothing there.. empty, as empty as bar after 2... It's too bad.
Do you ever have anything to say, or is name-calling it for you?
herring_RN, ASN, BSN
3,651 Posts
I volunteer at Red Cross blood drives. Sign people up too. I've donated gallons.
I would NEVER sneak a blood product on a patient who for religious and/or moral belief is that it is wrong to accept blood.
I have advocated for patients at 3:00 am to prevent this being done because we must advocate for the wishes of our patients.
I also would not allow a patient to be denied a blood product due to a providers moral opinion. We must also advocate in the best interest of our patients.