<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conscience Protection Update: What Might Happen Next and Why You Should Care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://catherinefavazza.com/2009/05/12/conscience-protection-update-what-might-happen-next/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://catherinefavazza.com/2009/05/12/conscience-protection-update-what-might-happen-next/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:09:17 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert J Cihak MD</title>
		<link>http://catherinefavazza.com/2009/05/12/conscience-protection-update-what-might-happen-next/comment-page-1/#comment-281</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert J Cihak MD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 21:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catherinefavazza.com/?p=1032#comment-281</guid>
		<description>My response takes a different tack than most:

http://tinyurl.com/BadConscience links to

http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2009/04/bad_conscience_is_bad_medicine.php 

Bad Conscience is Bad Medicine

April 9, 2009

Current civil rights laws and regulations governing federally funded programs prohibit discrimination against healthcare professionals because of their ethical stance on controversial issues. President Obama&#039;s administration proposes to rescind these regulations.

Most comments on this topic focus on the provider&#039;s rights to demur from morally objectionable activities, such as referring patients to abortion providers. I think forcing anybody to perform immoral actions is illegal under the first amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting Congress from making any law &quot;prohibiting the free exercise&quot; of religion, as well as the 14th amendment prohibiting slavery.

I&#039;m a retired physician and am now receiving medical services rather than providing them. From my current viewpoint as a patient, requiring doctors to do unconscionable things would harm me and limit my access to information.

Many doctors do not believe that all medical services are consistent with their personal beliefs; these services include chiropractic, physician-assisted suicide, alternative medicine, abstinence-only contraception, abortion, and acupuncture. As a result, they know little, if anything, about the quality of practitioners providing these controversial services. Some doctors are disgusted with some of these services.

If forced to refer a patient for such services, the doctor would not know which practitioners are competent in these areas and which are quacks. How could this doctor make a good referral? How would the doctor know which of these practitioners were even adequate to perform a given service and which not? For example, would Planned Parenthood staff know which abstinence-only practitioners were good? 

The patient would suffer as a result of forcing their health professionals to do unconscionable things.

My personal choices would be restricted if every doctor and hospital was forced to provide or refer for every possible service, because providers would not be able to let patients know their personal position. 

In my case, I plan to avoid doctors and hospitals providing physician-assisted suicide; if everybody was forced to refer for suicide, many doctors would be reluctant to let patients know their personal position on this question, restricting my access to this information.

Repealing the federal &quot;conscience clause&quot; laws and regulations would prevent medical professionals from making the best possible referral for each patient. Referrals, like diagnostic and treatment recommendations, should be based on that individual patient&#039;s needs and consistent with the moral and ethical convictions of both the patient and the doctor. 

If a doctor would be forced to make a referral for what he considers quack treatment, the patient would be the loser.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My response takes a different tack than most:</p>
<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/BadConscience" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/BadConscience</a> links to</p>
<p><a href="http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2009/04/bad_conscience_is_bad_medicine.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2009/04/bad_conscience_is_bad_medicine.php</a> </p>
<p>Bad Conscience is Bad Medicine</p>
<p>April 9, 2009</p>
<p>Current civil rights laws and regulations governing federally funded programs prohibit discrimination against healthcare professionals because of their ethical stance on controversial issues. President Obama&#8217;s administration proposes to rescind these regulations.</p>
<p>Most comments on this topic focus on the provider&#8217;s rights to demur from morally objectionable activities, such as referring patients to abortion providers. I think forcing anybody to perform immoral actions is illegal under the first amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting Congress from making any law &#8220;prohibiting the free exercise&#8221; of religion, as well as the 14th amendment prohibiting slavery.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a retired physician and am now receiving medical services rather than providing them. From my current viewpoint as a patient, requiring doctors to do unconscionable things would harm me and limit my access to information.</p>
<p>Many doctors do not believe that all medical services are consistent with their personal beliefs; these services include chiropractic, physician-assisted suicide, alternative medicine, abstinence-only contraception, abortion, and acupuncture. As a result, they know little, if anything, about the quality of practitioners providing these controversial services. Some doctors are disgusted with some of these services.</p>
<p>If forced to refer a patient for such services, the doctor would not know which practitioners are competent in these areas and which are quacks. How could this doctor make a good referral? How would the doctor know which of these practitioners were even adequate to perform a given service and which not? For example, would Planned Parenthood staff know which abstinence-only practitioners were good? </p>
<p>The patient would suffer as a result of forcing their health professionals to do unconscionable things.</p>
<p>My personal choices would be restricted if every doctor and hospital was forced to provide or refer for every possible service, because providers would not be able to let patients know their personal position. </p>
<p>In my case, I plan to avoid doctors and hospitals providing physician-assisted suicide; if everybody was forced to refer for suicide, many doctors would be reluctant to let patients know their personal position on this question, restricting my access to this information.</p>
<p>Repealing the federal &#8220;conscience clause&#8221; laws and regulations would prevent medical professionals from making the best possible referral for each patient. Referrals, like diagnostic and treatment recommendations, should be based on that individual patient&#8217;s needs and consistent with the moral and ethical convictions of both the patient and the doctor. </p>
<p>If a doctor would be forced to make a referral for what he considers quack treatment, the patient would be the loser.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catherine</title>
		<link>http://catherinefavazza.com/2009/05/12/conscience-protection-update-what-might-happen-next/comment-page-1/#comment-279</link>
		<dc:creator>Catherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 16:25:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catherinefavazza.com/?p=1032#comment-279</guid>
		<description>mattew jones: Thanks for your comment!

HistoryWriter: Thank you for pointing out my oversight. I&#039;ve fixed the lettering of the list above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mattew jones: Thanks for your comment!</p>
<p>HistoryWriter: Thank you for pointing out my oversight. I&#8217;ve fixed the lettering of the list above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HistoryWriter</title>
		<link>http://catherinefavazza.com/2009/05/12/conscience-protection-update-what-might-happen-next/comment-page-1/#comment-278</link>
		<dc:creator>HistoryWriter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 13:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catherinefavazza.com/?p=1032#comment-278</guid>
		<description>What is scenario &quot;c&quot; that seems to have gone missing from the possibilities Randy Pate outlined?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is scenario &#8220;c&#8221; that seems to have gone missing from the possibilities Randy Pate outlined?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mattew jones</title>
		<link>http://catherinefavazza.com/2009/05/12/conscience-protection-update-what-might-happen-next/comment-page-1/#comment-277</link>
		<dc:creator>mattew jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 03:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catherinefavazza.com/?p=1032#comment-277</guid>
		<description>the concience protections are not only incrediably dangerous, they are a frequent source of those wishing to attack the position of the less fortunate by coercing moral beliefs that they may not share in exchange for medical care. if it were to be believied that doctors and health care providers do not have to choose treatments that do not agree with their beliefs, this sets the precedent for such providers to futther discriminate and mke decisions out side of their patients control. refusal of medical care is an assult on freedoms of the American people, no matter what justification can be attached to it. patients ability to recieve treatment is tantamount to the feelings of individuals, health cate providers do not deserve to put their beliefs ahead of the overall good, and wishes of the patients.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the concience protections are not only incrediably dangerous, they are a frequent source of those wishing to attack the position of the less fortunate by coercing moral beliefs that they may not share in exchange for medical care. if it were to be believied that doctors and health care providers do not have to choose treatments that do not agree with their beliefs, this sets the precedent for such providers to futther discriminate and mke decisions out side of their patients control. refusal of medical care is an assult on freedoms of the American people, no matter what justification can be attached to it. patients ability to recieve treatment is tantamount to the feelings of individuals, health cate providers do not deserve to put their beliefs ahead of the overall good, and wishes of the patients.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
