• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Physician Conscience bill is in draft

Zygar

Master Poster
Z
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
2,606
My ex-governor, Mike Leavitt, is still trying to get his Physician Conscience bill through congress. Basically this law will allow anyone in the medical services to choose not to hand over a morning after pill, or even to perform a sterilization procedure, simply because of their "conscience", with no legal repercussions. It also allows the HHS to pull funding from any company or government entity which attempts to force someone to break their conscience.

His blog is here: http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov/my_weblog/2008/08/physician-con-2.html

I sent him an email protesting this bill. A short excerpt follows:

As a Republican, I always believed a primary goal of ours was to reduce the number of abortions which are performed. By enacting this law, we will be doing the reverse. Please reconsider this proposal and retract it.
Click to expand...
 
quixotecoyote said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...

Zygar said:
Basically this law will allow anyone in the medical services to choose not to hand over a morning after pill, or even to perform a sterilization procedure, simply because of their "conscience"
Click to expand...

My stance is that by reducing access to morning after pills and sterilization procedures, more unplanned pregnancies will occur, and more abortions will be sought.
 
Hi

Every town that has a McDonalds has a Planned Parenthood Center.

With all the physicians and pretty-darned-near physicians (prescribing N.P.s and such) who are ready, willing, and eager to dispense morning-after pills, I don't see how this will have any effect whatsoever.

Of course, I live in south-central Indiana where people faced with being required to do something against their conscience and finding a new job are pretty much happy filpping burgers for a few weeks between venues.
 
Gagglegnash said:
Hi

Every town that has a McDonalds has a Planned Parenthood Center.

With all the physicians and pretty-darned-near physicians (prescribing N.P.s and such) who are ready, willing, and eager to dispense morning-after pills, I don't see how this will have any effect whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I've personally walked more than one friend down to the closest medical provider to get a morning after pill, including down to the clinic that was part of our high school. Reducing the number of place that will provide such services can only make receiving the services difficult or impossible for teenagers.

Secondly, planned parenthood centers are not as common as you claim. This will impact poor and young people disproportionately.
 
Zygar said:
As a Republican, I always believed a primary goal of ours was to reduce the number of abortions which are performed. By enacting this law, we will be doing the reverse
Click to expand...

The problem is that as far as they're concerned, the morning after pill is an abortion.
 
I don't see the controversy here. I don't even see why there should need to be a bill that says a doctor doesn't have to perform labor against his will. It seems pretty common-sense to me.
 
RadioactiveMan said:
I don't see the controversy here. I don't even see why there should need to be a bill that says a doctor doesn't have to perform labor against his will. It seems pretty common-sense to me.
Click to expand...

A doctor is compelled to perform life saving treatments regardless of their personal feelings towards the patient.

Anyway, this is mostly an issue around pharmacists giving out the morning after pill.
 
Zygar said:
A doctor is compelled to perform life saving treatments regardless of their personal feelings towards the patient.

Anyway, this is mostly an issue around pharmacists giving out the morning after pill.
Click to expand...

I can't see how a morning after pill would be considered a life-saving treatment aside from some rare case where, maybe, some woman will die with reasonable likelihood if she carry a baby to term.

And if those are the case, then just walk down the street to the next doctor.

Having said that, a medical professional should post on their walls they will not do this or that treatment so as not to mislead the patients into thinking they're getting a full, proper, science-based treatment. When you need a treatment they don't provide isn't the time to find that out. :(


Having said that, I do have a problem with captive audiences, like military, prisoners, and so on, getting "stuck" in a place where such things are not provided. As such, such professionals should not be hired in the first place since their religion forbids full medical services.
 
Beerina said:
I can't see how a morning after pill would be considered a life-saving treatment aside from some rare case where, maybe, some woman will die with reasonable likelihood if she carry a baby to term.
Click to expand...

I never said it did.

And if those are the case, then just walk down the street to the next doctor.
Click to expand...

That all depends on whether you live in NYC or in Montana.
 
I guess for Zygar freedom of choice does not apply to people who do not to be involved with abortion.
 
Zygar said:
Let me clear something up. A morning after pill is not an abortion. Thanks.
Click to expand...


And I maintain if I own a drugstore, provided I follow the standard regulations for drug safety, If I want to refuse to carry a certain medicine for whatever reason, that is my right. I think any druggest that refuses to carry a morning after pill is throwing money down the drain, but that is his business, not mine.
We have been down this road before. You are willing to sacrifice individual liberty for an ideological end. That makes you no better then the anti abortionist you hate so much.
 
dudalb said:
And I maintain if I own a drugstore, provided I follow the standard regulations for drug safety, If I want to refuse to carry a certain medicine for whatever reason, that is my right. I think any druggest that refuses to carry a morning after pill is throwing money down the drain, but that is his business, not mine.
We have been down this road before. You are willing to sacrifice individual liberty for an ideological end. That makes you no better then the anti abortionist you hate so much.
Click to expand...

I have sympathy to Zygar's case, in that the morning-after pill is not a form of abortion by any stretch of the imagination (it simply destroys the egg/prevents it from being fertilized in the first place). As such, there shouldn't be any religious/moral components to this issue. However, except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, the AMA's Code of Ethics seems to reinforce your and RM's position:

When a personal moral judgement or religious belief alone prevents you from recommending some form of therapy, inform your patient so that they may seek care elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Recognise your right to refuse to carry out services which you consider to be professionally unethical, against your moral convictions, imposed on you for either administrative reasons or for financial gain or which you consider are not in the best interest of the patient.
Click to expand...

That said, in cases of the mother's health, the AMA would disagree with them:

Consider first the well-being of your patient.
Click to expand...

Doctor's who would refuse services to a woman who may die if she has the child seem to be negligent in their profession. Still, I am not sure how many of these cases could be known within the window that the MAP is still effective (about five days after intercourse).

Note, however, that there are not cases where "personal judgment" are acceptable for refusing to deliver services.

Also, nowhere in the Parmacist's Code of Ethics does it mention religious or moral components in decision-making. It does state however:

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
After searching (unsuccessfully) google, could Zygar link to a story which states that use of the morning after pill could potentially save mother's lives?

From what I've read, I think the Code of Ethics (which is definitely enforceable within the profession) lays out the guidelines well enough, and consider this legislation unnecessary and a waste of tax-payer money.

The morning-after pill is not abortion, i.e. there is no compelling moral or religious argument to be made, i.e. the primary concern for patients cannot be waived or differed by physicians or pharmacists (who do not have such concessions in their CoE).
 
dudalb said:
You are willing to sacrifice individual liberty for an ideological end.
Click to expand...

No. I maintain that the issue here is that the government is encouraging and abetting ignorance and an ideology based upon fallacious arguments.

Anyway, this is more around individual cases. A shop may not have the pill. That's their right. But if they have it, then they should be compelled to dispense it at need. This law would allow the dispenser to choose not to dispense. Yet, the majority of the issue is that it allows for discrimination because the reason for their choice not to dispense can always be "it upset my conscience."

That makes you no better then the anti abortionist you hate so much.
Click to expand...

I've never said anything about hating anti-abortionists. Feel free to assume what you want simply because this law bothers me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom