Trump's 'religious conscience'

Updated:   Published

Has anyone heard of this? Its saying that basically ANY healthcare worker has the right as of July 22nd to refuse care to a patient due to the healthcare worker's moral beliefs or religion. I'm so confused. First of all we as healthcare workers are here to help EVERYONE. Most people think it will effect LGBTQ or women, which I can definitely see happening. I mean rapists are against my morals so does that mean I can refuse treatment? I've been looking this up trying to find some clarification.

On the NPR website it states "Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put out a new rule that "implements full and robust enforcement" of existing laws that protect what the administration calls "conscience rights" for health care workers. The rule is set to go into effect on July 22."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/11/730659035/-patients-will-die-one-county-s-challenge-to-trump-s-conscience-rights-rule

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/legal-challenge-hhs-conscience-objection-rule/index.html

I added two links of articles I have found on it, still confused though. Any thoughts or facts you guys have?

On 6/17/2019 at 11:40 PM, CamMc said:

I am glad that is what you understand, that we can't let our beliefs interfere with our jobs. I'm by no means telling anyone to give up their beliefs (haters gonna hate), but I'm also saying if you can't look past your beliefs to do your job, then anyone (not you specifically) should re-evaluate their job and/or beliefs. To be fair you're changing the hypothetical situation, a complication from a sinful operation is different than someone being turned away for basic medical care. And from the private messages that dancrn has been sending me, being very preoccupied with my genitals, he/she thinks I'm delusional and a freak, so I doubt they would treat me in particular.

You can and should block him/her. That's just completely unacceptable.

7
Up Vote Up Vote ×

This is not the blanket "I can refuse to do anything for any religious reason" law that everyone is making it out to be, nor is this even new. Some of these laws date back to the 70's with the newest being around 2005.

Most of these laws are targeted at the government and institution saying that they cannot compel a healthcare worker to participate in certain specific procedures such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide etc. This is not a blanket, "the lady had an abortion so now I can refuse to care for her" law. This is a, "your employer cannot force you to suck the baby out of the lady" law.

These laws ONLY impact recipients of federal money. Keep in mind that many small private practices do not receive federal money.

These laws do not inhibit the right of the states to regulate your license. Keep in mind the states provide you your license, not the federal government and all states reserve the right to revoke that license at will. You do not have to break a law to have that license revoked.

7
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatric Nursing and Educational Technology.

My concern with the HHS ruling was that it also included "Conscience protections from compulsory health care or services generally (42 U.S.C. 1396f and 5106i(a)), and under specific programs for hearing screening (42 U.S.C. 280g-1(d)), occupational illness testing (29 U.S.C. 669(a)(5)); vaccination (42 U.S.C. 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and mental health treatment (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36(f))"

How on earth are they subject to someone's religious objection? I can understand the ethical dilemmas of abortion and euthanasia, but hearing screenings? WOW!?

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
21 hours ago, BeenThere2012 said:

I have been wondering what happened to separation of church and state? Doesn’t this apply here? Or was it meant for something else? Can anyone comment?

As with all laws, the court has weighs in to interpret the laws the legislature enacts and then the executive branch executes. Depending on how each of these 3 branches reacts to a law will determine how it becomes "real." A legal concept known as accommodationism largely dictates how the U.S. currently perceives Article 6, First and Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. government can assist, endorse, and even support religion but it must not favor a single religion. This is why things like, "In God We Trust" exist, it is vague enough to pass the accomodationism test.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 hours ago, BrentRN said:

My concern with the HHS ruling was that it also included "Conscience protections from compulsory health care or services generally (42 U.S.C. 1396f and 5106i(a)), and under specific programs for hearing screening (42 U.S.C. 280g-1(d)), occupational illness testing (29 U.S.C. 669(a)(5)); vaccination (42 U.S.C. 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and mental health treatment (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36(f))"

How on earth are they subject to someone's religious objection? I can understand the ethical dilemmas of abortion and euthanasia, but hearing screenings? WOW!?

Ethnocentrism makes it very easy for us to dismiss the religious and cultural norms of others.

The issue is that some of these things, like hearing tests, are compulsory in some states. Some religions do not believe in testing let alone treating these issues for various reasons mostly coming down to divine intention and/or a lack of perception that hearing loss is a deficit that needs to be corrected. Ever hear the term "handi-capable?" Not everyone sees health related deficits as deficits.

A famous group that is opposed to mental health treatment are Scientologists. You might snicker but to some of these people their beliefs are at the core of their very being and believe that the Constitution protects their right to practice their religion in the way they see fit.

Some religions do not believe in vaccinations, others do not believe in blood draws or receiving donor blood.

I personally have seen many people willingly die because they did not want a blood transfusion and you know what? I 100% support their right just as I support the 95yo patient with breast cancer to refuse chemo.

Judgement is easy, understanding is hard.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 6/17/2019 at 5:40 AM, hherrn said:

So, how about a simple, nurse to nurse question here:

I my interpretation of Christianity tells me I should not care for a transgender patient, should I be able to refuse that care?

No because the Bible is not factual, so to base your inaction on Biblical teaching would be unethical since ethics are presumably made on the facts of the case. The bible contradicts itself all over the place. It isn't factual history, it is sacred history and most people accept it as such. Theses are contradictory goals. If you had a gay child you wanted that kid to go to Mike Pence's wife's school and your kid wasn't accepted, you could find a bible passage to back you up but Mrs. Pence has absolutely nothing to resort to when her school refuses to accept your kid. Now, I can accept Jesus as a wise man and a prophet but nobody has any idea of what he actually said since the scriptures were not written anywhere NEAR the period he was alive. Every author has a different spin on his life so you can't base patient care on ancient spin because it may not be eithical.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatric Nursing and Educational Technology.
15 minutes ago, Asystole RN said:

Ethnocentrism makes it very easy for us to dismiss the religious and cultural norms of others.

The issue is not the choices of our patients. If an adult chooses not to have a hearing test due to a religious reason that is their right.

The issue is what nurses should be doing with ethical dilemmas regarding patient care. If a Scientologist goes to work in a psychiatric unit, or a Jehovah Witness goes to work in a blood bank, or a Christian Scientist goes to any healthcare facility I think they would harming their own faith and the health of the patients.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
19 minutes ago, subee said:

No because the Bible is not factual, so to base your inaction on Biblical teaching would be unethical since ethics are presumably made on the facts of the case. The bible contradicts itself all over the place. It isn't factual history, it is sacred history and most people accept it as such. Theses are contradictory goals. If you had a gay child you wanted that kid to go to Mike Pence's wife's school and your kid wasn't accepted, you could find a bible passage to back you up but Mrs. Pence has absolutely nothing to resort to when her school refuses to accept your kid. Now, I can accept Jesus as a wise man and a prophet but nobody has any idea of what he actually said since the scriptures were not written anywhere NEAR the period he was alive. Every author has a different spin on his life so you can't base patient care on ancient spin because it may not be eithical.

Arguing religion with your own beliefs is a losing proposition. Might as well argue blue is better than red. Your ethnocentrism is not universal. Your beliefs were created by your unique culture, upbringing, social status, family, friends, and other experiences, as they are for everyone.

Religious beliefs are personal and variable.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
18 minutes ago, BrentRN said:

The issue is not the choices of our patients. If an adult chooses not to have a hearing test due to a religious reason that is their right.

The issue is what nurses should be doing with ethical dilemmas regarding patient care. If a Scientologist goes to work in a psychiatric unit, or a Jehovah Witness goes to work in a blood bank, or a Christian Scientist goes to any healthcare facility I think they would harming their own faith and the health of the patients.

Just as institutions cannot discriminate against ADA protected employees, they cannot discriminate against employees due to their religion if they want federal funding.

This is not new, these laws have come in various forms since the 70's just on the federal level let alone the state level.

Keep in mind, individual states still reserve the right to judge the professional practice of their healthcare workers.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Family Nurse Practitioner.
6 hours ago, Asystole RN said:

Judgement is easy, understanding is hard.

This statement sums up the whole thread to date quite nicely. It would work well on a T-shirt. And I would wear it. ?

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
15 hours ago, Horseshoe said:

You can and should block him/her. That's just completely unacceptable.

Ever hear of freedom of speech? Just because you’re offended doesn’t make you right. And before you play the victim card and say that what I wrote is hate speech, which is not, even then it is considered free speech by the scotus.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
1 hour ago, DancRN said:

Ever hear of freedom of speech? Just because you’re offended doesn’t make you right. And before you play the victim card and say that what I wrote is hate speech, which is not, even then it is considered free speech by the scotus.

It would appear you have a misunderstanding of free speech. The only guarantee is that the government will not interfere. A private organization, such as this site, are not required to do that.

10
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion