Bush writing laws on his way out...

[lasix]

The law gives all health care providers the option to practice medice within the scope of their consciene. This, like many other health laws came about due to abortion, but will be felt well beyond that debate.

The effects of this law will be felt by medical professionals and patients. Medical professionals will now have the option to provide care and information to the patient. The medical professional will be allowed by law to deny the patient care, regardless of the patient's complaint because they, the medical professional are effected by their conscience.

Examples of this reach far beyond abortion and a doctor.

*A pharmacist could refuse to give you a perscribed medications for their own personal feelings about the drug.
*A nurse could refuse to give you a prescribed life saving medications such as heparin because they are a vegitarian, or for religous reasons (heparin is made from pork).
*A surgeon could neglect to offer all options available to the patient because of his or her conscience, and disregard what is in the best interest of the patient.
*A paramedic doesn't like "Arabs"... so the Arabs don't get the same chest compressions and intubation as the rest of society.

Pick your profession in the medical field, and apply any situtation, then say I don't want to do it because...

I find this disturbing.

I am interested in hearing your opinions.

EDIT: link didn't work

washingtonpost.com

 

[emdash]

Examples of this reach far beyond abortion and a doctor.

*A pharmacist could refuse to give you a perscribed medications for their own personal feelings about the drug.
*A nurse could refuse to give you a prescribed life saving medications such as heparin because they are a vegitarian, or for religous reasons (heparin is made from pork).
*A surgeon could neglect to offer all options available to the patient because of his or her conscience, and disregard what is in the best interest of the patient.
*A paramedic doesn't like "Arabs"... so the Arabs don't get the same chest compressions and intubation as the rest of society.

until there is only one pharmacist, one nurse, one surgeon and one paramedic in the world, and they all have overactive consciences, I'm not going to worry.

everyone else already reserves the right to refuse service, and consumers have long been fond of the threat to "take their business elsewhere."

 

[Oftencold]

You do know that the President doesn't write laws, right?

At any rate I am very comfortable with these directives. If someone is unhappy that a doctor or other health care worker won't help them with their little homicide, they are free to take their delightful business elsewhere.


From the Hippocratic Oath:

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.”​

 

[lasix]

until there is only one pharmacist, one nurse, one surgeon and one paramedic in the world, and they all have overactive consciences, I'm not going to worry.

everyone else already reserves the right to refuse service, and consumers have long been fond of the threat to "take their business elsewhere."

-There is only 1 nurse taking care of the patient at night.
-There is no trauma consult with various doctors... when the trauma surgeon is taking care of someone, there is only one... and that patient requires a blood transfusion, and the doctors is a jehovah witness.
-There is only 1 paramedic on the scene when you call 911 and tha person responds.
-When you live in a small town and there is 1 pharmacy for 100 miles... there is only 1.

The choice to take business elsewhere is not always an option.

 

[emdash]

-There is only 1 nurse taking care of the patient at night.

right and a hospital is going to pick the one nurse who is morally opposed to caring for patients.

-There is no trauma consult with various doctors... when the trauma surgeon is taking care of someone, there is only one... and that patient requires a blood transfusion, and the doctors is a jehovah witness.

yeah, then that patient is definitely screwed.

!

 

[lasix]

until there is only one pharmacist, one nurse, one surgeon and one paramedic in the world, and they all have overactive consciences, I'm not going to worry.

everyone else already reserves the right to refuse service, and consumers have long been fond of the threat to "take their business elsewhere."

True story.

Recently, I ran a code on a patient because the patient was having an asthma attack. The asthma attack could have easily been treated with med-nebs... But the nurse instead of calling for orders, sat with the patient and prayed...

How did we find out about this? the patient in the other bed in the room told us after the code when the asthamatic was brought to the ICU intubated.

 

[lasix]

right and a hospital is going to pick the one nurse who is morally opposed to caring for patients.

I meant to write, there is only one nurse taking care of a patient at a time.

 

[emdash]

I meant to write, there is only one nurse taking care of a patient at a time.

the new rule says that hospitals have to accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. that might entail putting a different nurse on a patient with asthma if one nurse objects to asthma meds. the hospital is responsible for accommodating its staff. it doesn't mean that a nurse can deny a patient life-saving medication or treatment and no one will get in trouble.

 

[lasix]

You do know that the President doesn't write laws, right?

At any rate I am very comfortable with these directives. If someone is unhappy that a doctor or other health care worker won't help them with their little homicide, they are free to take their delightful business elsewhere.


From the Hippocratic Oath:

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.”​

So it doesn't bother you, that you may one day find yourself in an Emergency Department, and the instead of treating whatever ails the person you love, be it a trauma, cardiac arrest, kidney failure, cancer, AIDS... The ethics will be discussed first?

Are you really suggesting that you would have no objections to watching a loved one die because the doctor is a jehovahs witness, and is against blood transfusions... just to spite abortions?

 

[Oftencold]

So it doesn't bother you, that you may one day find yourself in an Emergency Department, and the instead of treating whatever ails the person you love, be it a trauma, cardiac arrest, kidney failure, cancer, AIDS... The ethics will be discussed first?

Are you really suggesting that you would have no objections to watching a loved one die because the doctor is a jehovahs witness, and is against blood transfusions... just to spite abortions?

I'm and EMT, in a pinch I can do the transfusion myself. That aside . . .

Ethics and morality are top flight concerns, or we are animals, and should behave as such.

There would in your scenario also be a responsibility upon the hospital,and upon the local residents to inform and be informed about the services available.

Also, I am simply not going to condone forcing someone to commit what they and I consider one of the foulest forms of murder.

If the option is to accept the practice of murder, or place myself and my family at risk, that's what we'll have to take. The other choice leads to gas chambers and crematoria.

 

[lasix]

the new rule says that hospitals have to accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. that might entail putting a different nurse on a patient with asthma if one nurse objects to asthma meds. the hospital is responsible for accommodating its staff. it doesn't mean that a nurse can deny a patient life-saving medication or treatment and no one will get in trouble.

You are assuming that the hospital has the available resources. Not all hospitals are in large metropolitan areas. I have a friend who's a resp. therapist that moved to Vermont. He works in a 12 bed hospital. At night there are 2 RN's, a PA, and him. My point is that another body is not always an option.

In any event, the rule does provide protection to medical staff that refuse to provide care if it violates their personal beliefs. If those beliefs are to not give a lifesaving med, then they are protected. This makes treatment an "option", to the staff .

 

[lasix]

I am simply not going to condone forcing someone to commit what they and I consider one of the foulest forms of murder.

Aside from murder being an illegal act of killing... I agree with your concerns. I would not want to see someone forced to perform an abortion if they had a moral objection to it. Most places specialize in abortions, very few are perfomred in the hospital setting. If a person works at planned parenthood, and objects to birth-control and abortions, it's probably not a good place to work...

As an EMT you will never be faced with being in the position of helping assist with an abortion. However you may one day be faced with treating a patient who dialed 911 and is having complications from an abortion. This rule makes your treaing her an option if you have a moral objection to doing so.

How do you feel about that?

I'm and EMT, in a pinch I can do the transfusion myself.

No, you can't. Assuming your state allows an EMT to hang blood (what state)First you need 2 people to hang the blood. You cannot order the blood. The blood bank will not release the blood without an order. You cannot practice medicine without a license.

There would in your scenario also be a responsibility upon the hospital,and upon the local residents to inform and be informed about the services available

Services offered is open to debate if you do not have the staff willing to perform the tasks.

 

[emdash]

You are assuming that the hospital has the available resources. Not all hospitals are in large metropolitan areas. I have a friend who's a resp. therapist that moved to Vermont. He works in a 12 bed hospital. At night there are 2 RN's, a PA, and him. My point is that another body is not always an option.

it is the hospital's job to take care of it. if the 2 RNs have no moral objection to the kind of work they've been doing, your friend has nothing to worry about. if they do have a problem with it, it's his job (or whoever's in charge) to delegate the jobs that offend them to someone else or do them himself. he can refer patients to a different hospital. they might have to travel. people do.

In any event, the rule does provide protection to medical staff that refuse to provide care if it violates their personal beliefs. If those beliefs are to not give a lifesaving med, then they are protected. This makes treatment an "option", to the staff .

again, the staff can object to whatever they want but the hospital has a legal responsibility to know about it in advance and work around it. that's not unreasonable.

 

[Oftencold]

Aside from murder being an illegal act of killing... I agree with your concerns. I would not want to see someone forced to perform an abortion if they had a moral objection to it. Most places specialize in abortions, very few are perfomred in the hospital setting. If a person works at planned parenthood, and objects to birth-control and abortions, it's probably not a good place to work...

As an EMT you will never be faced with being in the position of helping assist with an abortion. However you may one day be faced with treating a patient who dialed 911 and is having complications from an abortion. This rule makes your treaing her an option if you have a moral objection to doing so.

How do you feel about that?

It would seem that my service would have the responsibility to determine my position under the highly unlikely scenario you describe.

Interestingly though, I can think of large numbers of people who might find themselves without emergency care, were medical providers as callous as you seem to think they might be.

For instance, being a violent gang member in an urban setting might not be a good position from which to seek medical care for your latest knife wound.

No, you can't. Assuming your state allows an EMT to hang blood (what state)First you need 2 people to hang the blood. You cannot order the blood. The blood bank will not release the blood without an order. You cannot practice medicine without a license.

I can't? You described a scenario in which a family member is dying before my eyes for want of a transfusion. Do you suppose I would stand by idly?

In my case however the question is moot. I live in a remote area with no facilities for transfusion or blood storage.

Turnabout being fair play, which rules, laws or regulations would allow you to stand by while an innocent relative that you might save dies before your eyes?

But while we're describing these various scenarios, what if a hospital agrees to provide medical supervision for an execution. Should a health care worker be compelled in this case?

Now, all of this conflict aside, it may well be that this directive is or is not well written to exclude objections to procedures necessary to preserve life and limb. I'm not going to read all 127 pages just now to find out. One would certainly hope so though.

Frankly, I find the idea of compelling a doctor to explicitly violate the Hippocratic Oath to be an appalling concept, the same for any other health care worker in the matter of abortion, and a small number of other "procedures."

 

[moe]

True story.

Recently, I ran a code on a patient because the patient was having an asthma attack. The asthma attack could have easily been treated with med-nebs... But the nurse instead of calling for orders, sat with the patient and prayed...

How did we find out about this? the patient in the other bed in the room told us after the code when the asthamatic was brought to the ICU intubated.

Can't criminal charges be brought against a nurse for something like that?
Are nurses licensed?

Moe

 

[tryreading]

This is all very dramatic, this thread, but I think that most of these ridiculous 'moral' concerns come up in non-emergency situations. I don't think many medical professionals will behave this way.

The thing about this issue is that when a person is in great need or in an emergency situation, and the health provider causes harm as a result of refusing to provide what the patient needs, the well deserved malpractice suit that follows will put that 'professional' on the right track again. That suit will also be a powerful warning to other doctors who might want make the same mistake.

True story.

Recently, I ran a code on a patient because the patient was having an asthma attack. The asthma attack could have easily been treated with med-nebs... But the nurse instead of calling for orders, sat with the patient and prayed...

How did we find out about this? the patient in the other bed in the room told us after the code when the asthamatic was brought to the ICU intubated.

I place the nurse in the above story in the same category with the freak who eventually begins killing people off in a nursing home. She is a fool, and a nut. I think most reasonable people don't respond to medical emergencies by praying, because they know it doesn't work. This type of thing may happen, but it has to be very rare.

 

[Jerry]

The law gives all health care providers the option to practice medice within the scope of their consciene. This, like many other health laws came about due to abortion, but will be felt well beyond that debate.

The effects of this law will be felt by medical professionals and patients. Medical professionals will now have the option to provide care and information to the patient. The medical professional will be allowed by law to deny the patient care, regardless of the patient's complaint because they, the medical professional are effected by their conscience.

Examples of this reach far beyond abortion and a doctor.

*A pharmacist could refuse to give you a perscribed medications for their own personal feelings about the drug.
*A nurse could refuse to give you a prescribed life saving medications such as heparin because they are a vegitarian, or for religous reasons (heparin is made from pork).
*A surgeon could neglect to offer all options available to the patient because of his or her conscience, and disregard what is in the best interest of the patient.
*A paramedic doesn't like "Arabs"... so the Arabs don't get the same chest compressions and intubation as the rest of society.

Pick your profession in the medical field, and apply any situtation, then say I don't want to do it because...

I find this disturbing.

I am interested in hearing your opinions.

EDIT: link didn't work

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

That's one way to get hysterical, sure.

If you consider how all the others laws interact with this one you will have a more educated understanding.

 

[lasix]

That's one way to get hysterical, sure.

If you consider how all the others laws interact with this one you will have a more educated understanding.

Thank you for the education on the subject and showing exactly how the laws interact with eachother. I see it so much more different now, and have a better understanding of the implications of the new rule. Thank you for taking the time in your post to explain your point :roll:

Do you realize the new rule protects the people in the central sterilization area? They don't have to clean the instruments if they have a moral objection to doing so.

That is not me being dramatic. That is specifically written about in the rule.

In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that a doctor cannot refuse care to a patient because she is a lesbian. Such a refusal amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation... This would reverse that decision. There are years of laws on the books and court decisions that have weighed the balance of patient rights and the medical staff's rights. This offsets that balance and makes ANY MORAL OBJECTION open to refusal.

 

[lasix]

The staff can object to whatever they want but the hospital has a legal responsibility to know about it in advance and work around it. that's not unreasonable.

A hospital cannot reasonably know what staff member will object to what procedure. At any given time, the patients circumstance can change, and what was thought to be a stable patient becomes one with multiple problems that could cross into the area of "morallity" and the person could then object to the treat the patient... and that person in the medical field is protected, but the patient is not.

I can write about procedure after procedure in a hospital that some type of moral issues come into play. Medicine is not black and white. The premise of medicine is to prevent the natural course to occur. We cure people of diseases, bacterial infection, wounds... that would otherwise kill the person. Interfering with the natural course of life could not be any more clean than making the dead walk again.

If someone wants to work in the medical field, then they need to have the ability to put their personal beliefs aside and do what is in the best interest of the patient. This rule does away with that. It allows refusal of care based on any individuals moral beliefs.

People do not sign up for the military if they are opposed to war.

Maybe the Bush administration should make another rule, that if someone in the military has any moral objection to the current war, they should be allowed to refuse to go to war, and the military is forced to restation the serviceman elsewhere. - I am not tying to go off topic - . My point, if it is not clear, is that there are many professions that the choice to perform the tasks in the job are not an option - nor should they be.

 

[moe]

Do you realize the new rule protects the people in the central sterilization area? They don't have to clean the instruments if they have a moral objection to doing so.

:shock: Man that is beyond real. But if people in the health industry such as your self unite politically may be together these laws can be repealed?

I realise that it should not be necessary in the first place but really these are some very bad laws. {thx for the PM}

Moe

 

[Jerry]

Thank you for the education on the subject and showing exactly how the laws interact with eachother. I see it so much more different now, and have a better understanding of the implications of the new rule. Thank you for taking the time in your post to explain your point :roll:

You didn't pay my faculty fee

Do you realize the new rule protects the people in the central sterilization area? They don't have to clean the instruments if they have a moral objection to doing so.

That is not me being dramatic. That is specifically written about in the rule.

Thats' an intolerable rule, please quote it.

In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that a doctor cannot refuse care to a patient because she is a lesbian. Such a refusal amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation... This would reverse that decision. There are years of laws on the books and court decisions that have weighed the balance of patient rights and the medical staff's rights. This offsets that balance and makes ANY MORAL OBJECTION open to refusal.

As I recall, that had to do with a purely elective artificial insemination procedure.

I think doctors should have complete freedom to refuse any elective procedure at all, for any or no reason what-so-ever.

 

[ADK_Forever]

I think doctors should have complete freedom to refuse any elective procedure at all, for any or no reason what-so-ever.

These Bush-Laws apply to more than doctors and elective procedures.

 

[lasix]

Thats' an intolerable rule, please quote it.

I don't charge a fee for making my point clear...

I have not been able to locate the actual 128 page report... I can only quote secondary sources, I have found several with the same language. Here will quote AARP. I believe AARP to be unbiased in this area of abortion, and unlikely to intentionally misquote the rule.

Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion

From the above link:
It also seeks to cover more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to "an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments," the draft rule said.

Your opinion on having a rule that makes doing one's job an option if based on personal reasons?

As I recall, that had to do with a purely elective artificial insemination procedure. I think doctors should have complete freedom to refuse any elective procedure at all, for any or no reason what-so-ever.

Really? So refusal of an elective procedure because the person is black, hispanic, catholic, gay, bald, when their is no medical contraindication to the procedure...

Do you realize that an elective procedure is just any procedure that is not life threatening? That includes cosmetic surgery, general surgery, orthepedic surgery, eye surgery. Is it all elective procedures, or just an elective procedure that is related to OB-GYN practice?

Do you see no problem with anyone saying "I do not want to participate in the birthing of your child because you are black"? And then having the backing of the US government in making such a decision.

If you feel prejudice, racism, bigotry are perfectly fine in providing care in the health field, then I hope you are an equal oppertunity hater. I hope you are for personal prejudice being allowed in deciding if a service is provided inother areas. Do you agree a plumber, a policeman, a school teacher, hairdresser, restaurant, the bus driver allow their personal moral convictions dictate if their "elective" services? Just as there is another doctor, plumber, bus seat, bathroom, elsewhere... There's this thing called "Seperate but equal" which was made illegal a generation past. This rule bypasses that ruling, and allows medical professionals to pass on patients because of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other personal conflict.

The problem is the medical professional, and not the patient.

 

[Jerry]

These Bush-Laws apply to more than doctors and elective procedures.

That may be, but you quoted my response to a specific example. If you could show a different example that would be helpful.

 

[Jerry]

I don't charge a fee for making my point clear...

I have not been able to locate the actual 128 page report... I can only quote secondary sources, I have found several with the same language. Here will quote AARP. I believe AARP to be unbiased in this area of abortion, and unlikely to intentionally misquote the rule.

Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion

From the above link:
It also seeks to cover more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to "an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments," the draft rule said.

Your opinion on having a rule that makes doing one's job an option if based on personal reasons?



Really? So refusal of an elective procedure because the person is black, hispanic, catholic, gay, bald, when their is no medical contraindication to the procedure...

Do you realize that an elective procedure is just any procedure that is not life threatening? That includes cosmetic surgery, general surgery, orthepedic surgery, eye surgery. Is it all elective procedures, or just an elective procedure that is related to OB-GYN practice?

Do you see no problem with anyone saying "I do not want to participate in the birthing of your child because you are black"? And then having the backing of the US government in making such a decision.

If you feel prejudice, racism, bigotry are perfectly fine in providing care in the health field, then I hope you are an equal oppertunity hater. I hope you are for personal prejudice being allowed in deciding if a service is provided inother areas. Do you agree a plumber, a policeman, a school teacher, hairdresser, restaurant, the bus driver allow their personal moral convictions dictate if their "elective" services? Just as there is another doctor, plumber, bus seat, bathroom, elsewhere... There's this thing called "Seperate but equal" which was made illegal a generation past. This rule bypasses that ruling, and allows medical professionals to pass on patients because of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other personal conflict.

The problem is the medical professional, and not the patient.

It's important to look at the full text of the actual rule itself. Short of that, all we have is potential bias.

I don't know how to be clearer....I suport a doctor's right to refuse to perform any elective procedure for any or no reason. If the doctor sneezes and thinks your bad luck, they have the right to refuse.