Another bad rule on it's way out the door

When I saw the title to this thread, I thought you were bringing up the policy reversal on nursing homes. Bush made nursing home employees government agents so that they would not be allowed to testify in court against any bad practices in that home. Caught it on the news the other night. I did a google to find it, but got 7 million hits on "Obama reverses Bush".

I think that I can safely say that I agree with your comment: "I'm not the least bit sorry to see this one go." on most of what is being reversed.

Bush left behind some scary stuff that never saw the light of day in either the house or senate.

It's going to take a long time to correct the abuses of the last eight years. He's doing a good job of chipping away at them.

Keep 'em rollin' back Mr. Prez!

So this overturns the ruling that if a healthcare worker (such as a pharmacist) has moral compunctions about a treatment, he/she can refuse?

Would you like to be forced to perform a mercy killing or an abortion?

First off, its not official YET. There's a commentary period of 30 days, during which I'm sure many opponents will speak out. This is another Friday slow news day blurb, meant to not gather much attention from the media.

From what I've read, it doesn't really change much. They just have to make alternative procedures known. I'm sure the folks at Planned Parenthood will be complying with the rules as well.

I personally think it's another step toward the Universal Health Care plan he has in mind. Well, that Daschle came up with and they'll be trying to implement. Get the doctors used to being "compliant" ahead of time.

Barack sure does love to see babies being killed. Now he thinks he can force otheres to do it. I think not.

Now how in the world could someone in the private sector be a "government agent"? You will have to prove that one to me.

no one else's moral objections should stand between me and my right to obtain whatever form of healthcare I need and or want

I don't believe this one will fly. I can't see anyone being fired for refusing to perform an abortion. Won't happen. Even though there are many who would love to force it on people, won't happen.

If it were legal and I had chosen to be a health care provider I would not have any say in the matter nor would I expect to. In fact I wouldn't want to. I would never inflict my personal beliefs on someone by denying them medical care they have a right to.

If I felt I was unable to do what my job requires the only honorable thing to do is to resign so my employer can fill my position with someone who can.

Yup. If you don't like your job, then find a different one.

[quote=Skippymjp;2572280Very early in the process they find out what being a care giver or health care provider may consist of.[/QUOTE]

Just as a curiosity, have you ever read the hippocratic oath? It's an example of long-held ethics, and regarded as a pretty good guide. It includes prohibitions of euthanasia and abortions.

I have known pharmacists who had high ethical standards and practiced in a small town with one religious bent for many years. When the town suddenly grew, late in their career, they found newcomers wanting them to violate their ethics. A change in that ruling would mean they could be charged with a crime for holding to their long-held practices.

Let's put it this way. You probably shouldn't go to St. Edward's hospital and expect an abortion.

I think there is plenty of room in medicine for those with high ethical standards, and I certainly wouldn't tell them early in their career that they are going to have to violate those ethics in order to practice medicine.

Neither "abortion" or "euthanasia" appears in the hippocratic oath.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

You and others may have chosen to interpret part of it to mean that but that would only be your interpretation.

Also, there doesn't appear to be a single "hippocratic oath". Medical schools are free to use one of their choosing.

I'm quite sure none of them is meant to give validity to violating the law.

I'll just quote the great American Aaron Tippin.

"You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm responding to the OP. I think they've both got it wrong. This is a private issue and shouldn't be a Federal mandate one way or the other. (Except perhaps if the provider is a government employee, like in a VA hospital.) Health-care professionals should exercise their moral objections; however employers should not be required to honor them. I guess what I'm saying is that this issue was handled correctly BEFORE the Bush administration stepped in: if a health-care employee's objections are based on their moral beliefs, then they should do whatever their beliefs require them to do. However, if what they do or don't do is against the will of their employer, then they risk being fired. If someone takes that risk then I think they really do believe in the morality of their decision. If they do what their employer tells them to do, then I guess it wasn't really all that important to begin with.

Government: stay out of personal and private beliefs about morality.

My opinion is that courage to stand by your convictions should be a valued attribute in an employee, and so the employee wouldn't be fired. Unfortunately, that's not the real world. Sometimes people have to make tough choices. I just don't think it's the government's role to stick their nose in there and say what the right decision is supposed to be.

It's also unfortunate that both parties are using yet another broad issue, or I should say MISusing a broad issue, to focus on the abortion issue.

I worked in a hospital in Council Bluffs Iowa as a summer job while in college in the mid-70s. This was shortly after abortions became legal and it seemed to be less of problem then than it is now. This was the only place that performed legal abortions in Council Bluffs, there were no clinics and the other hospital was Catholic. It was accepted by everyone that worked there including management that any employee could opt out of performing or helping with an abortion. It was a non-issue and abortions were available and performed there with no impediments to women getting one. We also had no protesters around the building. It is hard to believe that this has if anything become more of a devisive issue than it was 30 years ago.

Here's a pretty good discussion from "Talk of the Nation" on NPR on Monday.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101349857

The one thing I noticed was the claim a rape victim had to drive 200 miles to get to "the next pharmacy." Kansas is spread out, but I don't know of anywhere there that is 200 miles away from a pharmacy.

I have never understood what people have against the "morning after" pill.
I was on the impression that if a woman took this within 24 hours it would keep the egg from fertilizing. If the egg has not fertilized, I don't consider it an abortion. I don't consider the morning after pill as any different than BC pills. Am I wrong here?

There is more to this ruling than meets the eye. Here's an example. I belong to an HMO insurance plan. My doctor recently prescribed blood pressure medication that isn't on the HMO approved list. My insurance wouldn't pay for it initially. Why? Because there is a cheaper medication they say I should take. Problem is that I once took that cheaper approved medication, and I had an adverse reaction to it. I can't take what the HMO wants me to take. Period. My doctor had to write an explanation to the insurance company, and then await their hearing on the matter. It took over a month to finally get the approval I needed! Good thing I wasn't in immediate need of that med or I could have died during that month of waiting.

You want the government to run our health care system? Think again. This overturning of a ruling allowing the physician to NOT do anything against his moral judgment is just a precursor to government telling that same physician what he can and can't do in the care of HIS patient, that same patient that the board of medical oversight has never met nor examined. I TRUST my doctor to make the best decisions regarding my care, since he knows my health and my record. I certainly don't want his hands tied by a group of bureauocrats looking at budgets and deciding that I'm too old or too sick to be treated.

If the patient is in a part of the country where religious objection to birth control and the morning after pill is common, she could be forced to travel many towns over to find a pharmacist willing to dispense. For someone who is in difficult financial circumstances, or who works long hours, or in a place where the weather is inclement, or who lives in a remote area, any significant distance (don't forget that not everyone owns a car) or delay may make the difference between being able to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or being forced to carry one to term (which I am amazed would be considered in any circumstance, much less in a country without paid maternity leave or readily available child care, but that's another issue).

I listened to that story yesterday and thought it was a very one-sided discussion, which is a bit unusual for NPR. Deirdre McQuade, assistant director of policy and communications for the pro-life secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, got most of the response airtime, and blithely dodged specific issues that were raised such as the one you mentioned above.

You are correct. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...-4363.htm#work

Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of misinformation out there about how not only the morning after pill works, but also about how birth control pills work. Many anti reproductive choice groups spread misinformation that erroneously equates not only the morning after pill, but even birth control pills with abortion. Thus, when a doctor or pharmacist chooses to put their personal beliefs above the welfare of their patient or customer, even the availability of birth control could be a problem, especially in areas where such beliefs are common, and in rural areas with few pharmacies to choose from.