Bush's Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

Considering my last post, this is rather timely! However you will

find it interesting that I agree with this to some degree. I think

this should be extended solely to those who are put in a position in

which what they are doing or not doing may cause the

patient's 'unwanted or unexpected harm to a patient " . So if in fact

the patient wants an abortion this is her right and should be

performed by those health care workers who choose to be employed in

such a clinic or environment. If it is an emergency surgical abortion

to save the life of the mother then any healthcare worker should be

required to assist, since failure to act would endanger the patient.

Simply put " first do not harm " .

If a person does not want to assist in abortions then don't seek a

job in which would have to. If a RPh does not want to dispense Plan B

then don't seek a position in which you will have to OR find an

alternative for the patient.

I am in the middle on this issue. I want to exercise good ethics such

as in the case of what I outlined in my previous reply (by the way I

was NOT aware of this information at the time I posted my last), but

I do not believe in denying any human medical attention based upon

the fact one is married, single, gay or lesbian or heterosexual

either. I belive in the use and research of stem cells taken from

sources that do not require a fetus at this time. By the way there

are such sources.

So I do not have a YES or NO stance on this issue. I am hoping it can

be re-written to minimize the hardships for many and maximize the

benefits for all.

Have a good read!

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner

Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801556.html?hpid=topnews

By Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, December 19, 2008; Page A10

" The Bush administration yesterday granted sweeping new protections

to health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their

personal beliefs, setting off an intense battle over opponents' plans

to try to repeal the measure.

Critics began consulting with the incoming Obama administration on

strategies to reverse the regulation as quickly as possible while

supporters started mobilizing to fight such efforts.

The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or

local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that

does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees

who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or

religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups,

abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired,

disciplined or penalized in other ways.

But women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion

rights activists and some members of Congress condemned the

regulation, saying it will be a major obstacle to providing many

health services, including abortion, family planning, infertility

treatment, and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of

scientific research.

The 127-page rule, which was issued just in time to take effect in

the 30 days before the change in administrations, is the latest that

the administration is implementing before President Bush's term ends.

The " right of conscience " rule could become one of the first

contentious tests for the Obama administration, which could seek to

reverse the rule either by initiating a lengthy new rulemaking

process or by supporting legislation already pending in Congress.

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team did not specifically

address the rule yesterday, but spokesman Nick Shapiro issued a

statement that said Obama " will review all eleventh-hour regulations

and will address them once he is president. " Obama criticized the

regulation when it was proposed last summer.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-

N.Y.) introduced a bill last month to repeal the rule, said: " We will

not allow this rule to stand. It threatens the health and well-being

of women and the rights of patients across the country. " Similar

legislation is pending in the House.

Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, noted that

Congress has a limited window to act. " Right now our efforts are

focused on the executive branch. "

The regulation's supporters, including some members of Congress,

vowed to defend it.

" We will marshal a nonpartisan, grass-roots coalition to prevent any

weakening of current conscience protections, " said Tony Perkins,

president of the Family Research Council, a socially conservative

group that opposes abortion.

s of the Christian Medical Association said: " We will do

all in our power to ensure that health-care professionals have the

same civil rights enjoyed by all Americans. These regulations are

needed, do not change the law but simply stop religious

discrimination. "

The rule comes at a time of increasingly frequent reports of

conflicts between health-care workers and patients. Pharmacists have

turned away women seeking birth control and morning-after emergency

contraception pills. Fertility doctors have refused to help unmarried

women and lesbians conceive by artificial insemination. Catholic

hospitals refuse to provide the morning-after pill and to perform

abortions and sterilizations.

Experts predict the issue could escalate sharply if a broad array of

therapies becomes available using embryonic stem cells, which are

controversial because they are obtained by destroying very early

embryos. Obama is poised to lift the Bush administration's

restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

" Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to

choose between good professional standing and violating their

conscience, " said Mike Leavitt, secretary of the Department Health

and Human Services, which issued the regulation.

The rule, which will cost more than $44 million to implement, gives

more than 584,000 health-care organizations until Oct. 1 to provide

written certification of their compliance. Those that do not comply

face having their funding cut off or being required to return funding

they have received.

Officials at hospitals and clinics predicted the regulation will

cause widespread disruptions, forcing family planning centers and

fertility clinics, for example, to hire employees even if they oppose

abortions or in vitro fertilization procedures that can destroy

embryos.

" It is going to cause chaos among providers across the country, " said

Cecile s of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The regulation could also make it difficult for states to enforce

laws such as those requiring hospitals to offer rape victims the

morning-after pill, experts said.

Because of such concerns, 28 senators, more than 110 House members

and more than a dozen state attorneys general opposed the regulation,

along with medical organizations including the American Medical

Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

and the American Hospital Association.

The rule is supported by such groups as Concerned Women for America

and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic

hospitals.

" We urge the incoming Congress and administration to honor this much-

needed implementation of long-standing laws, " said Deirdre A. McQuade

of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. " Individuals and

institutions committed to healing should not be required to take the

very human life that they are dedicated to protecting. "

The language of the rule stresses that it is designed to make sure

federal laws on the books since the 1970s are enforced, and that

nothing in the regulation will prevent an organization from providing

any type of care.

Leavitt initially said the regulation was intended primarily to

protect workers who object to abortion. The final rule, however,

affects a far broader array of services, protecting workers who do

not wish to dispense birth control pills, Plan B emergency

contraceptives and other forms of contraception they consider

equivalent to abortion, or to inform patients where they might obtain

such care. The rule could also protect workers who object to certain

types of end-of-life care or to withdrawing care, or even perhaps

providing care to unmarried people or gay men and lesbians.

While primarily aimed at doctors and nurses, it offers protection to

anyone with a " reasonable " connection to objectionable care --

including ultrasound technicians, nurses aides, secretaries and even

janitors who might have to clean equipment used in procedures they

deem objectionable. "