Bush's new health regulations

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Guido,

You have to keep reading...

quote:If a certain pharmacy wants to set up and operate under such rules that would be fine with me, but to ad hoc allow certain places at random times to deny me whatever medicine they object to seems unworkable.

I specifically said if your pharmacy wants to NOT sell a particular drug, so be it.  If an attorney doesn't want to do divorces, then don't.  If a factory doesn't want to manufacture sexual devices, they won't.

My gripe was in the ad hoc nature of the law as reported.  I did not look up the text of the law, if allowed for "moral" judgments then an individual would be free to hinder their employer as they saw fit.  Furthermore, if on a moral basis I thought all people having sex before marriage should die of STDs then I could withhold drugs from that particular group (no wedding ring?  Enjoy your syphilis!) - or other ridiculous "moral" judgments.  

You can keep whatever moral beliefs you want, until they hinder your job performance.  At which point an employer should be free to fire you.  Personally, my religion affords me a 3 day weekend and alcohol at 5pm... but I can't find an employer willing to keep with my moral beliefs.

I read the entire post and my impression from  the entire post was your hostility to the regulation, in particular the comment "What if I feel AIDS is a curse from God unto the homosexuals of America?" I guess I misundertood.
Perhaps your point is if you have advance notice by your provider about their moral objections to certain drugs/treatment then you are okay with their decision. Am I right? If so, we agree.

[cannon_fodder]

Sorry for being unclear, I'm sure you understand how I put these snippets together in a "drive by" fashion.  My position is four fold:

1) An employer should not be forced to be encumbered by his employees religious beliefs.  An employee is free to believe and practice as they wish, but no one else is forced to recognize nor accommodate those beliefs.  

Ie.  If my boss wants me to work every Sunday for some reason and I object on religious grounds, he can fire me.  And if my boss says I need to hand over birth control pills while working at his pharmacy and I morally object, he should have the right to discharge me from his employment.

2) My second notion would be the need for notice as you outlined.  If a pharmacy doesn't sell the "abortion pill" then it should be available knowledge.  In such a way it could be uniformly applied to avoid potential pitfalls associated with ones moral judgment as cast upon others.  

My fear of a good Christian pharmacist refusing AIDS drugs to a man they believe is gay was not in jest .  I could honestly see that happening (nor would it be restricted to that religion or that circumstance).  I see how this conflicts with my Libertarian philosophy but it is a conflict of rights issue:  what's more important, the patients ability to get potentially life saving drugs or the pharmacists right to listen to the voice in their head?  

3)  These medications are restricted because of governmental action.  They require the permission of someone licensed by the federal government to be ordered. They are distributed by governmental approved and licensed institutions.  

To then appear and request your product and have that denied based on "moral" grounds hits a strange note.  Hard to really explain it without spending time drafting an actual position, but a pharmacy acts with governmental authority - placing the action of medical distribution under strict scrutiny for discrimination.  This law, as reported, would be ripe for violations.

This goes hand in hand with the restricted access argument in small towns, in hospitals, late at night, etc.  Because of the restricted access it could be nearly impossible to get certain medications when needed.

And finally, 4) the much over used slippery slope argument.  More a question of interpretation, but along the same vein.  Who gets to decide if their "moral" judgment is legitimate?  

I assume you are OK with refusing abortion pills, but what about the AIDS question?   Or diseases that are endemic to a particular race?  Who gets to make the final call as to what drugs you can refuse and to whom?

Again, if it is an institutional policy it somewhat quells this argument.  But nonetheless you see the pitfalls.

[we vs us]

I'm interested in what "rights" a practitioner has, in relation to what type of medicine and/or procedures he is willing to prescribe/perform.  Are you talking about the Hippocratic Oath?  Or is there another body of law or tradition that I'm unaware of?

I'd only be "for" these sort of regulations if we could guarantee that every American has a ready second option if his/her primary provider opts out of a given procedure/prescription on moral grounds.  

So in other words, I'm pretty much against it.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar


The rule prohibits recipients of federal money

That encompasses almost every doctor and pharmacy in the country, if not every single one.

I take it you've never heard of Medicare?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

I'm interested in what "rights" a practitioner has, in relation to what type of medicine and/or procedures he is willing to prescribe/perform.  Are you talking about the Hippocratic Oath?  Or is there another body of law or tradition that I'm unaware of?

I am talking about basic, fundamental rights each of us have in deciding how our lives are led. That's all.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

I'm interested in what "rights" a practitioner has, in relation to what type of medicine and/or procedures he is willing to prescribe/perform.  Are you talking about the Hippocratic Oath?  Or is there another body of law or tradition that I'm unaware of?

I am talking about basic, fundamental rights each of us have in deciding how our lives are led. That's all.

Your missing the point, Guido.  No one has ever been forced to participate in abortions.  Pharmacists can refuse birth control, so long as someone else can fill the prescription.  I have no problem with the Federal Government ensuring that individuals can keep their job, and still refuse to perform acts that violate their conscious.  But this goes so far as to allow doctors to refuse to even consult with their patients regarding legally permissible treatments.  Could you imagine if you had a condition that might pose serious health issues, and that there were a medical procedure that could cure you, but your doctor failed to inform you about that?  If a doctor doesn't want to provide a service, then fine, but he or she is a specialist who, like lawyers, should at least be legally required to provide you with all of the options, even when they don't agree morally.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

I'm interested in what "rights" a practitioner has, in relation to what type of medicine and/or procedures he is willing to prescribe/perform.  Are you talking about the Hippocratic Oath?  Or is there another body of law or tradition that I'm unaware of?

I am talking about basic, fundamental rights each of us have in deciding how our lives are led. That's all.

Your missing the point, Guido.  No one has ever been forced to participate in abortions.  Pharmacists can refuse birth control, so long as someone else can fill the prescription.  I have no problem with the Federal Government ensuring that individuals can keep their job, and still refuse to perform acts that violate their conscious.  But this goes so far as to allow doctors to refuse to even consult with their patients regarding legally permissible treatments.  Could you imagine if you had a condition that might pose serious health issues, and that there were a medical procedure that could cure you, but your doctor failed to inform you about that?  If a doctor doesn't want to provide a service, then fine, but he or she is a specialist who, like lawyers, should at least be legally required to provide you with all of the options, even when they don't agree morally.

Can you give me an example of the serious health issue situation you discuss?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

I'm interested in what "rights" a practitioner has, in relation to what type of medicine and/or procedures he is willing to prescribe/perform.  Are you talking about the Hippocratic Oath?  Or is there another body of law or tradition that I'm unaware of?

I am talking about basic, fundamental rights each of us have in deciding how our lives are led. That's all.

Your missing the point, Guido.  No one has ever been forced to participate in abortions.  Pharmacists can refuse birth control, so long as someone else can fill the prescription.  I have no problem with the Federal Government ensuring that individuals can keep their job, and still refuse to perform acts that violate their conscious.  But this goes so far as to allow doctors to refuse to even consult with their patients regarding legally permissible treatments.  Could you imagine if you had a condition that might pose serious health issues, and that there were a medical procedure that could cure you, but your doctor failed to inform you about that?  If a doctor doesn't want to provide a service, then fine, but he or she is a specialist who, like lawyers, should at least be legally required to provide you with all of the options, even when they don't agree morally.

Can you give me an example of the serious health issue situation you discuss?

If you were raped, or if your birth control method were to fail, and if a pregnancy posed a serious health risk to you, most doctors would prescribe the morning after pill upon request.  Under Bush's new rule, not only does the doctor not have to prescribe it (forgetting that you many not have any other doctor to which to turn), but your doctor does not even have to tell you that the medication exists.  You may not know that there exists an non-abortive method to prevent pregnancy.  For many women, this would be a much safer method to ensure their health.  But for a doctor who morally objects to the morning after pill, she might not have the opportunity to make that choice.  

Another example--birth control pills are frequently used to help women with fibroids.  Shouldn't a doctor be required to tell a patient what the most effective treatment is for a medical condition?

I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't tell you all of the circumstances where this might come into play.  Ultimately, I simply believe that, when you contract with a doctor to provide medical care, he or she is at least obligated to tell you all of your legal options for treatment.  Failure to do so should be considered malpractice.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar


The rule prohibits recipients of federal money

That encompasses almost every doctor and pharmacy in the country, if not every single one.

I take it you've never heard of Medicare?

No I understand that.  You're right, as we become more of a welfare nation most of our health care is provided by the federal government, and therefore this rule would apply to almost all private health providers too.

I said I don't agree with this rule, it's silly to need a presidential decree to protect the employment of someone who obviously disagrees with the practices of their employer.  

If your moral convictions are so strong that you find it necessary to seporate yourself from the responsibilities of your chosen profession as perscribed by your employer, then your moral convictions should steer you to resign.  

Here is why this rule is illogical and silly:
You are responsible for your own actions, and by association you are responsible for the actions of any company or organization that you support as long as you are aware of such actions.  

So to simply say "I will not prescribe that drug because it's against my religion" does not make you any less responsible for supporting the company or organization that chooses distribute that product.  Therefore if your convictions are really that important the only logical step for you to take, is to resign.

If you think abortion is murder, but you are willing to work for the abortion clinic as long as they don't make you perform abortions, than how is that make you any less guilty?

Wouldn't that be the same as say, working for a hit-man (as his appointment maker []), having knowledge of the fact that he kills people every day, but then telling yourself that you are innocent because you never pulled the trigger. . .  It was against your moral convictions.

Poppycock!  Nothing but poppycock.  

This rule is poppycock.

Sorry for the strong language.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

I'm interested in what "rights" a practitioner has, in relation to what type of medicine and/or procedures he is willing to prescribe/perform.  Are you talking about the Hippocratic Oath?  Or is there another body of law or tradition that I'm unaware of?

I am talking about basic, fundamental rights each of us have in deciding how our lives are led. That's all.

Your missing the point, Guido.  No one has ever been forced to participate in abortions.  Pharmacists can refuse birth control, so long as someone else can fill the prescription.  I have no problem with the Federal Government ensuring that individuals can keep their job, and still refuse to perform acts that violate their conscious.  But this goes so far as to allow doctors to refuse to even consult with their patients regarding legally permissible treatments.  Could you imagine if you had a condition that might pose serious health issues, and that there were a medical procedure that could cure you, but your doctor failed to inform you about that?  If a doctor doesn't want to provide a service, then fine, but he or she is a specialist who, like lawyers, should at least be legally required to provide you with all of the options, even when they don't agree morally.

Can you give me an example of the serious health issue situation you discuss?

If you were raped, or if your birth control method were to fail, and if a pregnancy posed a serious health risk to you, most doctors would prescribe the morning after pill upon request.  Under Bush's new rule, not only does the doctor not have to prescribe it (forgetting that you many not have any other doctor to which to turn), but your doctor does not even have to tell you that the medication exists.  You may not know that there exists an non-abortive method to prevent pregnancy.  For many women, this would be a much safer method to ensure their health.  But for a doctor who morally objects to the morning after pill, she might not have the opportunity to make that choice.  

Another example--birth control pills are frequently used to help women with fibroids.  Shouldn't a doctor be required to tell a patient what the most effective treatment is for a medical condition?

I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't tell you all of the circumstances where this might come into play.  Ultimately, I simply believe that, when you contract with a doctor to provide medical care, he or she is at least obligated to tell you all of your legal options for treatment.  Failure to do so should be considered malpractice.

First, great point on the pregnancy issue. I would hate to think that the precious abortion right would in any way be interfered with.

One solution to this problem is the doctor informing his/her patient up front about their moral beliefs. That way, the patient can choose to go elsewhere.

Does anyone in this thread believe the government should force a private citizen to perform an act they oppose on moral grounds? If so, why stop with physicians?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


Does anyone in this thread believe the government should force a private citizen to perform an act they oppose on moral grounds? If so, why stop with physicians?

Part of being a professional is being..well..professional.

If you don't like what you're asked to do at your job, you have the same recourse the rest of us have. Quit.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by guido911


Does anyone in this thread believe the government should force a private citizen to perform an act they oppose on moral grounds? If so, why stop with physicians?

Part of being a professional is being..well..professional.

If you don't like what you're asked to do at your job, you have the same recourse the rest of us have. Quit.

Good solution. Throw the baby out with the bath water.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


Good solution. Throw the baby out with the bath water.

I could say that's exactly what you advocate.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


First, great point on the pregnancy issue. I would hate to think that the precious abortion right would in any way be interfered with.

One solution to this problem is the doctor informing his/her patient up front about their moral beliefs. That way, the patient can choose to go elsewhere.

Does anyone in this thread believe the government should force a private citizen to perform an act they oppose on moral grounds? If so, why stop with physicians?

Do you ever make your own decision, or do you just believe whatever the religious right tells you??  The morning after pill IS NOT a form of abortion.  Next, are you going to start singing every sperm is sacred???

I find it amusing when the religious right gets stuck in these conundrums.  On the one hand, you want a small government that stays out of business.  On the other hand, you want to force businesses to accommodate religious belief, even if that effects their bottom line profit.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the government protecting the employment of those who fail to do their jobs based upon religious ground, so long as people are still assured the right to receive legally permissible medical care.  On the other hand, failing to even advise a patient of available care is akin to malpractice.  What possible notice could negate that?  "You will not receive full medical treatment when you see this doctor"?  Or "I will not provide you with the information you need to make an informed decision about your health and your body"?  Maybe "There may or may not be other options out there for you, but I'm not going to tell"?  You trust your doctor with your life.  Is it too much to ask that they actually provide you with information for you to make a decision?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Next, are you going to start singing every sperm is sacred???

I've been committing genocide for decades. [xx(]

Guido:

Seriously, if a physician verbally and in writing gave a disclaimer that he may not mention life saving medicine or other procedures, pills, or treatments to a patient because he may morally object to some... then I'd be OK with the law.

quote:Sir or Madam, by seeing me as your physician you agree to accept the fact that I might not even mention treatments which very well may save your life or otherwise have positive life altering influences.  It is my prerogative to mention whatever treatments for you I feel my God or Gods would approve of.  Treatments not approved by my God or Gods, no matter what advantage they may have for you, will not be disclosed.  Federal law protects me from any consequences from my action/inaction based on what my God(s) have told me. Will you accept treatment under these guidelines?

That is what you are arguing in favor of, then fine.  If a patient is dumb enough to agree to those terms I'm OK with it.  Anything short of that is allowing a physician to steer the decision making of a patient based on whatever their God(s) tell them to do, without having to inform the patient (that pesky informed consent thing, where a Doctor is supposed to KNOW and reveal treatment options).

As a licensed position of trust (professionals having the highest duty to the public, by definition) a medical doctor has a higher duty than Joe the Plumber.  If he tells a woman there is no choice, she will believe him.  If he answers "there is no choice my God(s) will allow" she will rightly question his medical judgment and go elsewhere.

This law would allow an Doctor to abstain from recommending vaccinations because they morally object to it.  AIDS programs.  Birth Control. Cancer trials.  Whatever the hell they want to do, they can and I can't fire them and a patient might not know the difference.

YOUR moral convictions are YOUR problem.  If YOUR convictions prevent YOU from being employed, so be it.  I fail to see why something YOUR God(s) tells YOU should interfere with MY health care or my right to tell an employee what to do.

You're argument is that anyone should be able to believe anything they want to and act upon that belief in any manner that it may effect their job performance and not suffer any consequences.  Unfortunately, that is not how it works.  

Next up:  Pork slaughter houses that can't discriminate against Muslim or Jewish employees.  Got bacon?