Thursday, August 21, 2008

New Health Care Conscience Regulation

Hhs The Washington Post is reporting on a new HHS proposed rule that could have a significant impact in health-care workforces.  According to the Post:

The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds. . . .

The proposed regulation, which could go into effect after a 30-day comment period, was welcomed by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways. Women's health advocates, family planning advocates, abortion rights activists and others, however, condemned the regulation, saying it could create sweeping obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research. . . .

The regulation drops the most controversial language in a draft version that would have explicitly defined abortion for the first time in a federal law or regulation as anything that interfered with a fertilized egg after conception. But both supporters and critics said the regulation remains broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception and other forms of contraception, and explicitly allows workers to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere. . . .

The regulation, which would cost more than $44 million to implement, was aimed at enforcing several federal laws that have been on the books since the 1970s and were aimed primarily at protecting doctors and nurses who did not want to perform abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, [HHS Secretary Mike] Leavitt said. But critics said they remained alarmed at the scope of the regulation, which could apply to a wide range of health-care workers. For example, the regulation would cover "participating in any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, including referrals, training, and other arrangements for offending procedures. "For example, an operating room nurse would assist in the performance of surgical procedures; an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be considered to assist in the performance of the particular procedure," the regulation states.

The biggest effect for patients will take place in rural areas, where access to contraception and abortion services are already severely limited.  We'll give you updates on the proposed regulation's progress.

-JH

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2008/08/new-health-care.html

Labor and Employment News | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e55429080c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Health Care Conscience Regulation:

Comments

So basically this new rule would allow medical facilities and pharmacies that have monopolies (small town/rural areas) to deny services such as dispensing birth control pills to anyone. I have no problem with not forcing Dr.'s to provide abortions as I cannot imagine forcing a doctor to provide rhinoplasty.

My only beef is when morning after pills are denied to rape victims when there is no other way to get it, and when birth control is denied when there is no other way to get it.

I prefer a rule that says you could deny dispensing drugs on grounds of conscience if there is another individual there that can provide the drug.

What next, imprisoning men for Onanism? lol

Posted by: Per Son | Aug 22, 2008 6:26:41 AM

What next, imprisoning men for Onanism?

Congratulations! You win the prize for non-sequitur of the month!

What you propose (forcing doctors to violate their consciences) would provide a much better lead in to this:

"Next, we'll be imprisoning men for NOT engaging in Onanism every once in a while! Freedom of religion is for free people, but this is America, and the only legitimate moral authority is the Collective."

Posted by: Lo Gic | Aug 23, 2008 8:50:12 AM

Post a comment