Because the question says "who" even though it starts to go off into procedures.
Yes, I believe doctors should be able to refuse procedures against their moral values, such as abortions. However, they should have a paper on file that says which ones they object to and refuse to do to and only allow them to refuse the ones they've listed in advanced. And, of course, refusing requests if it isn't in the patient's best interest (asking for a liposuction without dieting, ect).
However, a doctor shouldn't be allowed to choose WHO they help. That leaves so much room for discrimination that it's not even funny. "Oh, you're Muslim? Nope." "You're gay and dying? I'm Christian and against it. I'm outta here."
To sum it up: Doctors should be able to choose WHAT they treat, but not WHO.
Should Medical Professionals Be Allowed to Choose Who They Help?
SodaHead News
2011/02/21 16:05:50
|
|
|||||
|
126 votes
|
|
35% | |||
|
185 votes
|
|
52% | |||
|
45 votes
|
|
13% | |||
On Friday, the Obama administration, with the at least tacit blessing of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), scaled back a measure signed by the Bush administration in its last days.
The measure said that all health care workers could demur from participating in certain medical procedures, such as abortions, if they had a moral objection to the procedure.
Perhaps the “such as abortions” part of the Bush rule was what the Bush rule intended to address.
Perhaps not.
(Keep in mind, no one really knows what to call the signed document. While The Wall Street Journal calls it a “measure” or a “rule,” The Associated Press calls it a “regulation.” Although, if we’re taking suggestions, maybe it could be called a “Fantastical Magical Surprise,” because when you get to the O.R. and the doctor won’t do whatever you want him to do, in this fantasy, the cast of “Glee” pops out from behind a gurney and starts singing Justin Timberlake’s “Cry Me a River.”)
Regardless, the idea was in place before Bush ever got around to it. Since the 1970s, there were rules and regulations that required and prevented medical professionals from being admonished for not providing certain care, e.g. abortions, to people if the procedure went against the medical professional’s morality.
As The Associated Press mentions, the Bush measure strengthened “those protections by adding a requirement that institutions that receive federal money certify their compliance with the so-called conscience laws, so that money could be cut off if the law wasn't being followed."
The Obama administration doesn’t disagree with that.
"The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients,” HHS said in a statement. “Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion.”
Yet, there remains concern: Should those who chose to get into the field of helping others be allowed to choose which "others" they help?
The measure said that all health care workers could demur from participating in certain medical procedures, such as abortions, if they had a moral objection to the procedure.
Perhaps the “such as abortions” part of the Bush rule was what the Bush rule intended to address.
Perhaps not.
(Keep in mind, no one really knows what to call the signed document. While The Wall Street Journal calls it a “measure” or a “rule,” The Associated Press calls it a “regulation.” Although, if we’re taking suggestions, maybe it could be called a “Fantastical Magical Surprise,” because when you get to the O.R. and the doctor won’t do whatever you want him to do, in this fantasy, the cast of “Glee” pops out from behind a gurney and starts singing Justin Timberlake’s “Cry Me a River.”)
Regardless, the idea was in place before Bush ever got around to it. Since the 1970s, there were rules and regulations that required and prevented medical professionals from being admonished for not providing certain care, e.g. abortions, to people if the procedure went against the medical professional’s morality.
As The Associated Press mentions, the Bush measure strengthened “those protections by adding a requirement that institutions that receive federal money certify their compliance with the so-called conscience laws, so that money could be cut off if the law wasn't being followed."
The Obama administration doesn’t disagree with that.
"The administration strongly supports provider conscience laws that protect and support the rights of health care providers, and also recognizes and supports the rights of patients,” HHS said in a statement. “Strong conscience laws make it clear that health care providers cannot be compelled to perform or assist in an abortion.”
Yet, there remains concern: Should those who chose to get into the field of helping others be allowed to choose which "others" they help?
Top Opinion
-
Michelle 2011/02/21 17:55:15
Her point was that we can't always know what people go through to get to that point or why they need what they need. When they walk through those sliding doors, their only job is to help those in need not to morally judge others. If this was allowed, who would want to help AIDS patients, or fat people because they brought their problems upon themselves. Bit of a ramble hope I got my point across.
edit: listed the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath below.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will reme...
edit: listed the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath below.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
But they may not choose WHO they will or won't help.
I'm Scruffy, the Janitor
I do not feel it would be "right" to mandate that plastic surgeons perform breast "enhancements" for exactly the same reason. NEITHER is a life-SAVING procedure.
As I can never BECOME pregnant, my "view" on abortion is somewhat ambiguous. Even so, I feel mandating (a word that I think has VERY little "business" to do with ANY aspects of Health Care!) that ANY physician perform what is actually--whether you like it or not--an ELECTIVE procedure is no more correct than calling a mandate to PURCHASE insurance "health care".
As for who the doctor has to serve, if an illegal immigrant walks into doctor x's office with a bad cold and has unpaid bills from previous visits and no insurance I feel the office should be allowed to turn the patient away.
Everybody knows that's the government's job!
:-)
Analyst, Ph.D.