Patient rights first
Health care workers’ moral dilemmas shouldn’t hinder treatment
What should be done when health care workers cannot separate their personal beliefs from their professional duties? There are a lot of options that don’t affect patients.
A) Workers could avoid jobs that put them sideways with their moral codes.
B) They could work with their employers on protocols when moral dilemmas arise.
C) They could accept traditional professional guidelines, which mean patients come first and there might be times when workers will have to swallow hard while delivering services.
All of those choices are reasonable. None of them requires government interference. But last week the U.S. Health and Human Services Department chose “none of the above.” Instead, HHS Administrator Michael Leavitt released new rules that would shield such workers from the consequences of their career choices and potentially expose patients to negative outcomes.
The new rules, which are subject to a 30-day comment period, would punish hospitals, clinics and health plans by withholding federal funds if they don’t make accommodations for employees who morally object to medical decisions. The cost of implementation would be $44 million.
Washington is among several states that have passed laws to ensure patients receive treatment and medications as prescribed. Putting patients first has long been the tradition in health care. Those who pondered such careers knew there would be moral and religious conundrums. Some accepted that; some chose other fields.
That’s how it should be. Find killing morally objectionable? Don’t join the military. Opposed to the death penalty? Don’t become a prosecutor in a capital punishment state. Don’t think gays and lesbians should have children? Don’t work for an adoption agency.
The HHS wants to stand tradition and medical ethics on their heads by putting health care workers first. If Leavitt gets his way, objections by patients will be overruled.
The obvious motivator to this rule is abortion. An early draft took the unprecedented step of defining “abortion” as any interference with a fertilized egg after conception. That means taking an oral contraceptive immediately after rape to prevent a pregnancy could be deemed an abortion. The final rule does not define abortion, but it does leave it open for interpretation. Nor does it require a health care worker to inform a rape victim of her options or compel the offended worker to refer the patient to a colleague.
Though abortion is the driving force behind the change, the rule is written so broadly that it could apply to many areas, including medical research. The “right of conscience” movement is rapidly spreading. Doctors are refusing Viagra requests for unmarried men. Respiratory therapists won’t remove ventilators. Fertility specialists are turning away lesbians. Pharmacists won’t fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives.
Workers in all fields are sometimes faced with decisions that tax their personal beliefs. It’s absurd for the feds to step in, especially where the decisions are potentially life-changing.