US Doctors Can Refuse to Provide Abortions

Okay, this one is going to piss me off. I'm sorry, whatever your own viewpoints are on abortion, and I respect your opinion, NO DOCTOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE TREATMENT OF A PATIENT BECAUSE OF HIS OWN FAITH BELIEFS!!! A doctor is trained to treat and administer healing practices. He takes an oath, the Hippocratic oath (which is ironic as it is a pagan inspired oath, greek that is) to "First, do no harm"

If the doctor refuses to treat because of his own beliefs, and it causes harm, one way or another, to the patient, then he is breaking his oath. He should then be labeled and "Oathbreaker", which in my mind is quite despicable.

I am not one who stands for "on-demand" abortions, but I am Pro-Choice. I think that a woman, who-after much thought and deliberation-chooses to obtain an abortion has a right to it. It is between her and her deity/God/Creator, not between her and the general public. It is none of their bloody business! The general public has absolutely no idea what the woman has gone thru to get to this point. If she answers to anybody, it isn't the general public!

Now, having said that, I do believe there ought to be restrictions. If a woman is prone to getting one after another, offer her an IUD so she doesn't repeatedly get pregnant. Especially if she is using it as "birth-control"...that in my mind is wrong. However, if she is put in a position that she cannot see going thru with the pregnancy, and there is time, counseling first, and after, and allow her the treatment. And I don't necessarily mean faith-based couselling, but something to help her thru the emotional torment she may or may not go thru at the time or later. If her life is in danger, then there should be absolutely no question. Same with rape, incest, etc. And if the fetus is malformed or inviable, and I don't mean that will be disabled, but essentially lifeless, then allow as well.

But all in all, the issue is the woman's alone to decide. And it should take some thought, because it could come back later and trouble her. But I just don't see how a doctor can willy-nilly refuse treatment on any issue just because of his own faith. It really needs to have more thought than that.

Okay, here is the article:


Thursday August 21, 2008
US Doctors Can Refuse to Provide Abortions

Associated Press

Washington - The Bush administration Thursday proposed stronger job protections for U.S. doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion rights supporters served notice that they intend to challenge the new rule.

"Women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology," Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

The group, which had complained that earlier drafts of the regulation contained vague language that might block access to birth control, said it still has concerns about the latest version.

"Planned Parenthood continues to be concerned that the Bush administration's proposed regulation poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services," Richards added.

But Leavitt said the regulation was intended to protect practitioners who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization, and would not interfere with patients' ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

"This regulation is not about contraception," Leavitt added. "It's about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician's conscience."

The 36-page rule seeks to set up a system for enforcing conscience protections in three separate federal laws, the earliest of which dates to the 1970s. In some cases, the laws aim to protect both providers who refuse to take part in abortions and those who do.

The regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health care work force, not doctors alone. Accordingly, an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be covered. Also covered would be volunteers and trainees.

The underlying laws deal mainly with abortion and sterilization, but both the laws and the language of the rule seem to recognize that objections on conscience grounds could involve other types of services.

The regulation would take effect after a 30-day comment period.


Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.