For Sale:

Villa on the
Sea of Cortez

'Casa de la Costa'







The Israel Test

by George Gilder


God and Evolution

Edited by Jay Richards


Signature in The Cell

by Stephen C. Meyer


Money Greed and God

by Jay W. Richards


Support Discovery
Institute Today!


Search Discovery News

« Foreign Policy House of Mirrors | Main | Don't Exaggerate the "Open Meeting" Law »

Bad Conscience is Bad Medicine

Guest blog by Dr. Robert Cihak:

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's administration proposes to rescind these regulations.

Most comments on this topic focus on the provider'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 "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, as well as the 14th amendment prohibiting slavery.

I'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 "conscience clause" 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'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. See Freedom2Care for additional information.

Leave a comment

Top Discovery Articles

National Review Online

Livingston Daily

To The Source

National Catholic Register

Discovery Institute

Featured Video

The Deniable Darwin

The Deniable Darwin

by David Berlisnki
Purchase


A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy