So much for not feeling cranky

[dotfic]

I do like this journal to be as politics-free as possible. It's a place I go to forget about real-world stuff that makes my head explode. I have to break that rule for this, and it isn't going on my politics filter, it's important that word spreads. There are several good posts around lj from people more eloquent than me on the subject, including

Comments

[sdelmonte]

As horrible and as typical as this is, I think for the most part doctors who perform abortions made peace with the notion before entering careers that would require them to do it. And doctors who think it's murder already don't do it. The only place I see this being a real problem is with pharmacies, though most pharmacies don't receive government funding.

I am more concerned with where this can lead. What if a doctor decides not to revive a patient because his belief is that the patient should be allowed to die? Or if a doctor does revive a patient despite an DNR order (though I don't know it that constitutes denying care)? This is bad policy, like so much else that the current administration has done in the name of a limited agenda. Which is why one would hope that Obama jumps on this one and doesn't let go.

[dotfic]

It's my impression, having read the document, that the only punishment for reprimanding a worker who refuses services is the withdrawal of government funding. But funded clinics do dispense drugs and literature and other services.

What if a doctor decides not to revive a patient because his belief is that the patient should be allowed to die? Or if a doctor does revive a patient despite an DNR order

There are ramifications beyond abortion here, definitely.

The thing is, also, that there are already protections in place (the "Church Amendments"). Adding this regulation feels redundant, heavy-handed, and blatant political tap dance. It does open a door.

[marinarusalka]

As horrible and as typical as this is, I think for the most part doctors who perform abortions made peace with the notion before entering careers that would require them to do it.

I wish that were true. But there is actually a growing movement of right-wing medical professionals who deliberately seek out careers that would enable them to treat sinners the "right" way.

And the new rules aren't restricted to the doctors actually performing the procedures -- anyone connected in any way can claim their conscience to get out of doing their job. The receptionist can refuse to schedule you for an appointment, and the clinic can't discipline them.

More to the point, it would allow health insurance providers to refuse to cover birth control even in states where it's currently required by law. So much for the vaunted conservative concern for states' rights.

[dotfic]

Bottom line, this regulation will lead to denial of services, and our own government using the threat of "we'll take away the money" to make it so clinics can't do a thing about it if a worker does repeatedly deny services to patients. All the worker has to do is say, it was against my conscience. And the regulation wording is so broad, apparently it leaves things open to conflate birth control with abortion. Or a health care worker could refuse to treat a gay or transgendered person on the grounds that they morally object to the lifestyle.

it would allow health insurance providers to refuse to cover birth control even in states where it's currently required by law.

Aren't most health insurance providers private companies, though? Or do they receive government funding?

[amilyn]

I am so angry. I just poached someone else's LJ to reply to someone saying, "Well, I disagree with abortion, so I think that part's fine, but the birth control part is a problem..."...as if those can be separated.

Grrrrr. I was already cranky about going back to school day after tomorrow, now I'm just PISSY in general.

[dotfic]

Yeah, nothing about this is helping my mood. :p

Cherry picking out, well, it's okay for this regulation to restrict THIS but not THAT, is really missing the point. The denial of CARE and INFORMATION is a serious concern, or should be to anyone who actually cares if women are healthy. And not just women, this opens a door wide open for denial of health services to all kinds of groups.

(Dear Senator Obama: Please get elected. Please.)

[oceanmare]

That was my immediate worry, honestly. As hard as I know it is for women to get health care, I was remembering the early days of AIDS activism having to fight for health care for the various patients because so many doctors would deliberately downplay the debility of symptoms in order to avoid treating someone with HIV.

And then there's the DNR issue...doctors ignoring them because they HAVE to save the life, or deciding against the patient's wishes that they should have a DNR and not trying extraordinary measures.

It's too slippery a slope, with that rule, and too close to inching into a theocratic regime.

[dotfic]

Denial of care is unacceptable. This regulation condones denial of care. Never mind the lip-service they give, where the document says "this isn't about denial of care" -- it's about denial of care. Honestly, the whole thing is so vague and redundant, I really think this is just a political football.

DNR issue, the distribution of drugs and pamphlets -- they've made it so broad. And knowledge and education is the key here. Because you could say, ok, fine, if this doctor at the clinic refuses to do it, then the other doctor can do it. What if the other doctor isn't there that day. What if the first doctor, for moral reasons, doesn't want to tell the patient all their options because they have a conscience objection to those options. Or refuses to REFER them to another doctor. So the patient doesn't even KNOW what their other options are. There's a huge set of assumptions that have to be made before the first care denial ceases to be a problem. But there are parts of the country where there aren't other options.

[girlguidejones]

Hey you. I'm dropping you a link to my post on this topic a couple of weeks ago. It includes a link to writing Congress, the President, the HHS, and a link to a doc of the actual proposed rule, so that people can read for themselves what's being said.

It can be linked to at will.

Thanks for helping spread the word on this.

[dotfic]

Wow, you were right on this thing. That's a terrific post. I'll add it to my link round-up here. Sadly I'm sure we'll continue to need this kind of information.

Heh. These days it sometimes takes repetition for politics to get through my self-induced obliviousness. I was super informed in 2004 and most of 2005 and then got so disgusted I gave and now ignore as much as possible for the sake of my blood pressure. *sigh* Every so often things come up that are enough to drive me back into it, and I feel like I've got to do something NOW. (Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to? If this kind of crap wouldn't happen?)

I wrote to my congresscritters. Don't know how much good that'll do but every little bit has to help.

[girlguidejones]

It would be nice if we had an adminstration with basic common.effing.sense. It's not even an ISSUE of morality or religion at this point. It's an absolute, abominable twisting of science and a woman's right to secure her body.

We need a president with a brain so badly.

Again, thanks for taking up the cause.

[dotfic]

Common sense? From this administration? *hysterical laughter*

I don't even think the authors of this regulation give a hang about morality or religion. This smacks of political maneuvering. Gathering right-wing support for Republicans. Possibly to boost McCain's campaign as Bush slides towards the end of his term.

[anirien]

EW. Is this being votes on somewhere?!

[dotfic]

There's a 30 day comment period before the rule becomes final -- I don't know about the process, if the comment period is for deliberation where they are deciding whether the HHS decides whether or not to do it or not, or it's pretty much decided but there's a grace period of 30 days and they MAY stop it from going into effect if they can be talked out of it.

[muccamukk]

I went to an RCMP orientation once, and we were told that we had to accept three things about that career: 1) shift work: evenings weekends, holidays, whatever, kiss them goodbye. 2) we would have to make an oath of loyalty to queen and country (which I gather aganst some religions), and 3) at some point in your career, you may be required to kill someone.*

If we could not accept any of these criteria, we should not apply for this career. Not being able to do any of those things didn't make you a bad person (not being able to do 3 probably makes you a better person than me), but it does make you a person that should not be in that line of work.

It occures to me that the medical professions should have similar disclaimer. If you are not willing to follow the current laws of the nation and state, look for different work. The end.

*I am NOT comparing birth control and abortion to shooting someone in the head.

[dotfic]

Or at least, shouldn't become doctors in government funded facilities. Private practice, or maybe a church-funded medical facility. But not in a place whose mission is to give health care to those who have few other options.

Other problem is, marinarusalka has a link above to a growing movement among the religious right to become doctors in order to be able to refuse to give abortions. Increase their number in the medical profession to make it harder to get an abortion.

Which brings me back to what you're saying, that regardless of religion, if someone's going to become a doctor, they need to accept there are times when they will have to do something they don't want to if it's in the best interest of the patient. No one should be forced to do something against their conscience..but gov't funded clinics should be allowed to dismiss medical workers who refuse to perform services the clinic is supposed to provide.

The regulation claims this will in no way deny medical services -- except it will. By its very nature, it will end up doing just that