This TMA press release/”Alert” is a shallow statement which ignores the history and facts behind the ruling and addresses the right to conscience as though it is dependent on circumstances and can be “rescinded.”
The individual right not to act is called “Liberty.” As an inalienable right, liberty cannot be given away or taken. It cannot be “balanced” by actions of the State or by organized medicine, only infringed.
The ruling does cover emergencies and is only a clarification of the many laws in place at this time to protect the right not to act of health care professionals.
Was there any attempt to balance this opinion by contacting those in support of the ruling?
For more information on the Ruling and the (4 year or more) history behind it, see the many “conscience” articles at this blog and the information at Freedom2Care.
TMA Backs Rescinding ‘Conscience’ Rule
TMA, AMA, and state medical societies across the country support the Obama administration’s plan to rescind a federal rule that prohibits recipients of federal funds from forcing physicians and other health care professionals to participate in actions they find religiously or morally objectionable.
In a letter to Acting Health and Human Services (HHS) Administrator Charles E. Johnson, the groups said the Conscience Rights of Health Care Providers regulation, adopted by the Bush administration in December, is unnecessary and could have far-reaching implications. They said it “could undermine patients’ access to vital medical care and information, impede advances in biomedical research, and create confusion and uncertainty among physicians, other health care professionals, and health care institutions about their legal and ethical obligations to treat patients.”
They wrote that they support “strong conscience protections” for physicians, residents, and medical students and other health professionals, especially when it comes to abortion. No physician, hospital, or hospital employee should be required to perform an act that violates good medical judgment or personally held moral principles. “However, while we support the legitimate conscience rights of individual health care professionals, the exercise of these rights must be balanced against the fundamental obligations of the medical profession and physicians’ paramount responsibility and commitment to serving the needs of their patients. As advocates for our patients, we strongly support patients’ access to comprehensive reproductive health care and freedom of communication between physicians and their patients, and oppose government interference in the practice of medicine or the use of health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population.”
Other points in the letter include:
* Abortion education should be encouraged “so medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal, and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy …” The letter adds that “the observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in abortion should not be required.” Resident training should include “specific educational standards for the knowledge and skills associated with pregnancy termination that allow an exclusion for individuals or residency programs with religious/moral objections or legal restrictions.”
* Several provisions and definitions in the rule “are ambiguous, overly broad, and could lead to differing interpretations causing unnecessary confusion among health care institutions and professionals, thereby potentially impeding patients’ access to needed health care services and information.” The rule, for example, defines “health service program” as “any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded, in whole or in part” by HHS. “This definition inappropriately expands the scope of the conscience provisions beyond family planning and abortion services to include virtually any medical treatment or service, or biomedical and behavioral research,” the letter says.
* The rule does not address how conscience rights of individuals and institutions apply in emergencies.