The Issue:
A new federal regulation is aimed at protecting the rights of health-care providers like Christiansen who refuse to participate in a procedure such as abortion because of their moral or religious beliefs.
Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," said Mike Leavitt, head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The new rule, they claim, goes further by specifying that all health-care workers -- from doctors to hospital janitors -- may refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients based on their moral objections. Those objections, critics say, could cover anything from abortions to fertility treatments to stem-cell research.
This regulation explicitly allows that doctor, that nurse or any other health care provider to withhold information from a patient trying to make a medical decision," said Adam Sonfield, a senior public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute. The organization is focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, according to its Web site.
In addition, although federal laws bar institutions such as hospitals from discriminating against those who refuse to perform certain procedures or provide referrals for patients, the new rule is intended to make sure federal money doesn't go to providers who violate those laws. –CNN
My Issue:
I have some serious issues with this new federal ruling. Though the policy is aimed to protecting those who refuse to offer or participate in abortions, protecting the religious beliefs of medical providers in general is a dangerous slippery slop. Refusing honest and necessary medical advice, procedures and services to someone is down right wrong and dangerous. Furthermore, though this policy is narrow in scope, it very well could take on a much broader national policy beyond its original intent to also include health insurance providers, home care services, to name a few.
When dealing with public policy, particularly healthcare, there is no room for discrimination based on religious convictions, otherwise many of our public services could be in jeopardy. Religious convictions are a personal matter, not a public matter! Not everyone in God’s green earth is wired to have the same beliefs or convictions. Therefore, this proposed policy is flawed and has no place in public policy.
For example. Lets say I’m a physician and you are a homosexual male or a lesbian women, maybe even a prostitute. If this policy goes into affect I could have the legal right to deny medical services and care simply because my religious beliefs and church teachings dictates that the lifestyle is a sin. Though this may sound ridiculous, should this policy be adopted this example, as well as others could very well become a reality down the road.
Yes, we should be respect an individuals religious beliefs. On the other hand, we should also respect those who do not have the same beliefs. This policy is nothing more than a back door approach to eventual discrimination. Therefore, I am totally against the adoption of such a policy since it could very well affect me and you somewhere down the road.
To read this article and others in full click here.
A new federal regulation is aimed at protecting the rights of health-care providers like Christiansen who refuse to participate in a procedure such as abortion because of their moral or religious beliefs.
Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," said Mike Leavitt, head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The new rule, they claim, goes further by specifying that all health-care workers -- from doctors to hospital janitors -- may refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients based on their moral objections. Those objections, critics say, could cover anything from abortions to fertility treatments to stem-cell research.
This regulation explicitly allows that doctor, that nurse or any other health care provider to withhold information from a patient trying to make a medical decision," said Adam Sonfield, a senior public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute. The organization is focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education, according to its Web site.
In addition, although federal laws bar institutions such as hospitals from discriminating against those who refuse to perform certain procedures or provide referrals for patients, the new rule is intended to make sure federal money doesn't go to providers who violate those laws. –CNN
My Issue:
I have some serious issues with this new federal ruling. Though the policy is aimed to protecting those who refuse to offer or participate in abortions, protecting the religious beliefs of medical providers in general is a dangerous slippery slop. Refusing honest and necessary medical advice, procedures and services to someone is down right wrong and dangerous. Furthermore, though this policy is narrow in scope, it very well could take on a much broader national policy beyond its original intent to also include health insurance providers, home care services, to name a few.
When dealing with public policy, particularly healthcare, there is no room for discrimination based on religious convictions, otherwise many of our public services could be in jeopardy. Religious convictions are a personal matter, not a public matter! Not everyone in God’s green earth is wired to have the same beliefs or convictions. Therefore, this proposed policy is flawed and has no place in public policy.
For example. Lets say I’m a physician and you are a homosexual male or a lesbian women, maybe even a prostitute. If this policy goes into affect I could have the legal right to deny medical services and care simply because my religious beliefs and church teachings dictates that the lifestyle is a sin. Though this may sound ridiculous, should this policy be adopted this example, as well as others could very well become a reality down the road.
Yes, we should be respect an individuals religious beliefs. On the other hand, we should also respect those who do not have the same beliefs. This policy is nothing more than a back door approach to eventual discrimination. Therefore, I am totally against the adoption of such a policy since it could very well affect me and you somewhere down the road.
To read this article and others in full click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment