and a new OBAMA limitation of rights

[2win]

---

Members do not see this ad.

"
President Barack Obama is moving to tilt the balance of power back to patients in the struggle over whether health care providers must provide controversial services, regardless of whether they violate religious or moral principles.

President Barack Obama wants to roll back a Bush administration rule that has become a flash point in the debate over a doctor's right to refuse to take part in abortions.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)

In the final days of the prior administration, President Bush pushed through a rule designed to give health care workers the freedom to refuse to provide services deemed morally repugnant -- possibly including abortion counseling, birth control and sterilization.
Today, the new management at the Department of Health and Human Services sent the Office of Management and Budget a proposal that would rescind that Bush rule, according to an administration official. After OMB reviews the rule, it's likely to be published in the Federal Register, which will then "

 

[Scrub MD]

"
President Barack Obama is moving to tilt the balance of power back to patients in the struggle over whether health care providers must provide controversial services, regardless of whether they violate religious or moral principles.

President Barack Obama wants to roll back a Bush administration rule that has become a flash point in the debate over a doctor's right to refuse to take part in abortions.

This should bring about some lawsuits from patients when their doctor will not provide an abortion, sterilization or birth control. Too many voters were swayed by his speaking abilities and didn't care what he really believed in. He told everyone what they wanted to hear and most people didn't care to research him.

 

[aaydemi]

We had a big discussion about this in our medical ethics class. My personal conclusion...no physician should have to participate in any procedure or medicine that is NOT LIFE-THREATENING, whether morally objectionable or not.

The heart of this case is about abortion, which I believe is an ELECTIVE procedure.

If a patient comes in with a benign mole to a dermatologist's office, they can refuse to remove it.
If a patient comes in with a benign epidermal cyst to a surgeon's office, they can refuse to take it out.
If a drug seeking patient comes to the pain management clinic, they can refuse to dispense narcotics.
If a 85 y/o ASA 4 granny on Medicare comes into an orthopedic surgeon's office and wants her hip replaced because she's had an occasional pain, they can refuse the procedure.

Why is it any different for an elective abortion?

That being said, I think there's room for a middle ground, where physicians can refuse any elective procedure, but must give a referral and/or the resources to someone that will perform it.

 

[Impromptu]

When I take the Hippocratic oath, I am going to take it seriously. I will not break my oath for a few hundred bucks. I will not use my medical knowledge to hurt another. I won't use it to perform an abortion or lethal injection.

As an aside, kudos to the Missouri anesthesiologists for holding out against the state and not performing lethal injections for 2.5 years. And to that oathbreaker anesthesiologist who recently decided to go for the money and use his medical training to execute someone, may the curses contained in that oath fall upon you.

 

[Jeff05]

tough call. you know what happens when a professional does not preside over the execution? the inmate can potentially suffer.

i do agree, however, that a physician should not preside over executions.

When I take the Hippocratic oath, I am going to take it seriously. I will not break my oath for a few hundred bucks. I will not use my medical knowledge to hurt another. I won't use it to perform an abortion or lethal injection.

As an aside, kudos to the Missouri anesthesiologists for holding out against the state and not performing lethal injections for 2.5 years. And to that oathbreaker anesthesiologist who recently decided to go for the money and use his medical training to execute someone, may the curses contained in that oath fall upon you.

 

[2win]

We had a big discussion about this in our medical ethics class. My personal conclusion...no physician should have to participate in any procedure or medicine that is NOT LIFE-THREATENING, whether morally objectionable or not.

The heart of this case is about abortion, which I believe is an ELECTIVE procedure.

If a patient comes in with a benign mole to a dermatologist's office, they can refuse to remove it.
If a patient comes in with a benign epidermal cyst to a surgeon's office, they can refuse to take it out.
If a drug seeking patient comes to the pain management clinic, they can refuse to dispense narcotics.
If a 85 y/o ASA 4 granny on Medicare comes into an orthopedic surgeon's office and wants her hip replaced because she's had an occasional pain, they can refuse the procedure.

Why is it any different for an elective abortion?

That being said, I think there's room for a middle ground, where physicians can refuse any elective procedure, but must give a referral and/or the resources to someone that will perform it.

There is no room for middle ground - this is a violation of our rights. we have the right to refuse a treatment and to direct the patient to another physician if we consider moral unacceptable the treatment (procedure). Obama or other communist cannot force us to kill babies. That's enough of this pseudointelectual talk...Wake up guys!!!

 

[BIDres]

There is no room for middle ground - this is a violation of our rights. we have the right to refuse a treatment and to direct the patient to another physician if we consider moral unacceptable the treatment (procedure). Obama or other communist cannot force us to kill babies. That's enough of this pseudointelectual talk...Wake up guys!!!

Hold on, let's look at the facts. You referenced an article from ABC, but you clearly did not read it very carefully. Obama is not proposing new legislation, he simply wants to rescind or rewrite Bush's last-minute rule intended to "protect medical providers." But Bush's law was vaguely written and, among other things, would allow interpretation to extend to pharmacists who refuse to dispense morally objectionable medication (i.e., birth control). Giving pharmacists the power to ignore a physician's prescription, in my opinion, is an attack on our rights, not a protection. Prior to Bush's new rule (2 months ago), we as physicians were not obligated to perform abortions, were we? How does rescinding this law suddenly "force us to kill babies"?

from the article you reference:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=6974993&page=2
"Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official."

Based on your posts, I will assume you are staunchly opposed to abortion. That is well within your rights. It is also your right to refuse to perform or participate in this procedure. This has not and will not change. Let's be honest, this rule by Bush was not intended to "protect medical providers", but rather a thinly-veiled attempt to limit women's access to birth control options. But whether my accusation is true or not, rescinding the rule has nothing to do with forcing anyone to perform an elective abortion. Instead, we should be debating questions such as how much power should pharmacists have, or do we as physicians have an obligation to refer such patients to other providers willing to provide care? Rescinding, or at least rewriting, this rule is a good thing--we need to make sure that we protect the rights of BOTH physicians AND patients, and I would argue that Bush's rule potentially infringes on both.