Posted on 12/19/2008 7:26:15 PM PST by Starman417
One thing can be said... all of us - on both sides of the aisles - live in the dark on most actions our govt is doing on our "behalf". So those with particular specialties, and an eye on relative legislation, are often very helpful in drawing attention to issues that arise we would otherwise miss.
Such is the case when Larry Weisenthal, one of our left leaning FA commenters, requested an authored post on a new regulation to be implemented prior to Obama's inauguration, the "conscience rule".
First off, what is the Conscience Rule? I didn't know either. So I started with Larry's link to the USA article today - Medical 'Conscience Rule' may be ethical hot potato".
Step aside, inaugural prayer furor, a new controversy is burning -- the Bush administration's newly approved "conscience rule" for health care workers.Under the rule, which takes effect mid-January, anyone from the brain surgeon to the pharmacy cashier can opt out of participating in care to which they have a moral or religious objection. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt described it as a rule to protect "the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."
~~~
Currently religion-based health care service providers, such as the vast Catholic health care network, have complained that some federal and state laws require their employees to provide care in opposition to the teachings of their faith. The new rule would override state laws that require hospitals to tell rape victims about access to emergency contraception, for example.
Sounds ominous, yes? How has this escaped us? And did it come out of nowhere as a gauntlet thown down as a sunset measure... thus becoming a test for a new President Obama to make a definitive statement on abortion?
Most importantly, is this a moral/religious/Hippocratic Oath assault on abortion and "death with dignity"? Or is it more subtlely founded in lawsuits?
Since not as many are advocating the "Die with Dignity" law that my home state, Oregon, has on it's books, what is emerging from the woodwork vocally in response to the new regulation - slated to take effect mid January - is the abortion advocates. And they are using the religion argument hot and heavy to drive their point home. Fair? Not entirely... read on.
Before you snap to a quick judgment, let me tell you that this is not a clear cut issue for either side. Most of us will find ourselves split on the issue by the time you are thru reading links, and assessing the reality.
Nor is this a new issue in Congress. While this appears to be a hidden surprise for the public, in reality this is a battle that rages back to at least 1997 in our Congress.
From the above linked 1997 Reuters article:
Health plans contracting with Medicare would not have to provide end-of-life or abortion services if they objected on moral grounds, a House committee decided Thursday.The plans also would not be required to provide palliative care, which lessens pain without curing. The House Commerce Committee approved the ``conscience clause'' as it debated legislation creating a new program to cover up to 5 million uninsured children and cut Medicare and Medicaid spending.
The measure is one of the most significant domestic initiatives to move through Congress this year. It calls for $15 billion in savings in the Medicaid health program for the poor, elderly and disabled while providing $16 billion in grants to states to cover uninsured children.
The bill is needed to implement a five-year balanced budget deal between Congress and the White House. It was expected to be approved later Thursday.
The committee by 33-12 vote approved an amendment making it clear that health plans contracting with Medicare would not have to provide, pay for or cover counseling or referral for services such as end-of-life, abortion or family planning to which they object on moral grounds.
According to that article, the biggest debate between the opposing parties was not the morality of abortion or assisted death, but amendments to eliminate or trim a pilot project allowing 500,000 seniors to set up tax-free medical savings accounts rather than participating in the traditional Medicare program.
Not knowing that particular bill, nor tracking it's progress, it's safe to assume that it ran into a brick wall somewhere, and was not implemented in that form.
The debate in the medical industry did not lapse with the legislation's failure. According to anti-"conscience rule",Tresa Baldas, in her article: FIGHTING REFUSAL TO TREAT 'CONSCIENCE' CLAUSES HIT THE COURTS in the The National Law Journal in Feb 2005, the battle raged on in, at least, the state level.
A wave of proposed legislation and numerous lawsuits are highlighting a trend by state governments to protect anti-abortion medical providers who refuse to offer services or drugs on religious or moral grounds.Last year, 14 states introduced 37 bills that would allow pharmacists and other health care providers not only to opt out of abortion services, but to refuse to fill prescriptions for any drugs on the basis of personal or moral convictions.
In addition, nine states introduced broader bills that would permit the refusal of any medical procedure or drug for any reason.
The courts are also dealing with at least a dozen lawsuits that have been filed in recent years by medical professionals suing over the right to exercise their personal beliefs while on the job.
Ah... lawsuits. Being the cynic I am, somehow I believe lawsuits play a large part in this battle in Congress. It is probably the single most issue that drives all legislation... the ability for legal recourse for a perceived "wrong". Now we have it.
But it has to be said, not necessarily all of these objections for procedures is founded on religion. And for that, we can refer to a pertinent excerpt of the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath. [Note: Read in entirety at link]
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
He’s not saying that people can’t do these things, he’s just saying they shouldn’t be forced into it!
That’s reasonable to me, I don’t see what the problem is. So you go to another dang pharmacy. Someone out there has more greed than conscience, I guarantee it.
Yes, but where does that stop? Suppose that the only pharmacy within 20 miles of my home (a Rite-Aid) decided that it was against the personal beliefs of the pharmacist, or the stock boy, or the cashier, to dispense my headache medicine (because it has side effects), or pain-killer (because it's potentially addictive), and so on?
It's much more reasonable to say that the (few) individuals who object, should go into another line of work, than to say that the (many thousands of more) individuals who depend on getting their medicine should have to drive 50 miles to a pharmacy who dispenses it -- IF one exists.
What's next, condoms? Lipstick? Cigarettes? Where does self-righteous indignation stop?
> That’s reasonable to me, I don’t see what the problem is. So you go to another dang pharmacy. Someone out there has more greed than conscience, I guarantee it.
You must live in an area with a pharmacy every 5 miles. Lucky you. I don't.
Here's my message to a pharmacist who wants to cherry-pick what pharmaceuticals he does and doesn't dispense:
It's a freaking store, fer cryin' out loud. If you don't want to dispense legal pharmaceuticals, get into another business -- it's a free country. But don't claim that your self-righteousness entitles you to override the medical needs of thousands of your neighbors who depend on you.
Dig? We agree -- he shouldn't be forced into selling something that's against his religious beliefs. He can find something else to do that doesn't bother him, and another person can take over the pharmacy store.
An inverse (broad) example can be: Corporations firing employees who smoke cigarettes. If said corporation receives even 1 penny of state/federal dollars, and cigarettes are yet legal, is the corporation acting illegally.
State-subsidized hospital has doctors refusing to do abortions. Can/will the hospital be sued?
etc.
This is a good thing. People should be able to live according to their conscience.
It is going to be okay; you will still be able to get your aspirin and condoms.
:^)
And if he doesn't want to get into another business? No liberty then?
> And if he doesn't want to get into another business? No liberty then?
Funny how y'all take the opposite point of view when the person objecting is, let's say, a Muslim delivery boy who refuses to deliver alcoholic beverages, or a Muslim cabbie who refuses to accept a fare in his cab because they've got alcohol with them.
Y'all tell him, "So get another job, or start another business, where you won't have to do things that are against your religious beliefs."
Understand, I'm not taking the Muzzie's side whatsoever -- I'm arguing against it. I'm saying, to ANYBODY who doesn't want to do something that is part of their job or business, GET ANOTHER JOB, or START A DIFFERENT BUSINESS.
Cabbies deliver people. Delivery boys deliver whatever they're told to. Pharmacies deliver drugs.
Just because we're talking about abortion vs. alcohol vs. aspirin doesn't make it any different; the principle is the same. (You aren't taking the Muzzie's side on this, are you?)
Don't like the job you've got or the business you're in? Get another job, or start a different business. Sure it's tough, but it's ONE person who is inconvenienced, not the THOUSANDS who depend on that person. And the onus of change is on the one who objects, which is proper.
Seems perfectly clear to me.
> ...y'all take the opposite point of view...
I did not, alas, go through each of your previous posts on FR to see if you'd expressed that opinion in the "Muzzie cabbie" etc. threads. I made a generalization because the vast majority of FR comments are of that nature.
If in fact you support the right of a Muslim to cherry-pick who he serves, based on his religion, without it affecting his job, please correct me, and I will apologize for my error.
Y’all don’t know what cher talkin’ about. I have never said that raghead taxi drivers should get another job. If the pharmacy near you won’t sell you what you want you are free to move.
Okay, my apologies for my erroneous generalization.
> If the pharmacy near you won’t sell you what you want you are free to move.
I grant you I could move. But my point is not that I'm not free to move. It's that the pharmacy (business) is not the individual employee who objects to selling me {whatever}.
The pharmacy business stocks the item I want, or else I would indeed be seeking another pharmacy.
The problem is not the pharmacy, it's the individual who works for the pharmacy, whose religious beliefs get in the way of doing his or her job at the pharmacy.
I have no problem with the individual's beliefs, whatever they are. There are local folks who are righteous vegan/vegetarians who refuse to handle meat in a grocery -- that's their right. My point is, if you don't like the work, get another job. Don't stand between thousands of customers, and the products that the business is set up to provide to them. Telling those thousands of customers to move is not a solution.
FWIW I don't understand this rule well enough to know if it follows that reasoning or not.
I wouldn't accept that argument on any issue. It is not the government's job to provide solutions to people's personal problems. Also allowing people to exercise their own free choices is not "telling" anyone else what to do.
Open your own damn pharmacy. Another statist invades FR. You!
The business is not set up to provide you with whatever you want. It’s set up to sell what it wants to. It the owner of a business chooses not to sell a particular item or decides to let it’s employees not sell a particular item that’s up to them. If an employee doesn’t want to sell something that the owner has decided must be sold, then they should quit or be fired.
Heh, "statist"? Not bloody likely, that...
I didn't say the state should force anybody to sell something they don't want to. Geez. I just said that it's up to each individual to exercise their free choice by taking a job that's in keeping with their personal beliefs. And if the job requires that they do something they don't believe in, they should find work elsewhere. They don't have the right to define their job against the wishes of their employer. That's all.
People here are confusing "the pharmacist" or "the cashier" with THE OWNER OF THE STORE which is most likely a chain, and follows the rules of the owners of the chain.
The days of the corner drug store which is owned personally by the pharmacist are mostly (though not entirely) gone, and pharmacists and cashiers are hired just like any other employee.
So let me be clear: I'm talking about employees who object to the job they were hired to do.
If indeed you're speaking of that rarity, a pharmacy which is personally owned by the pharmacist (or the cashier), I have no gripe with him exercising whatever product restrictions he wants to. He can refuse to sell condoms. Or cigarettes. Or abortion pills. Or aspirin.
The marketplace will provide an answer to that problem, in time.
We agree completely.
My comments are about pharmacists (and cashiers, etc.) who are hired by a pharmacy, and who subsequently object to doing the job they were hired to do.
If the objection is made by the true owner of the store, that's a different matter. See my comment #17 above for why I think the pharmacist-owned drug store is not what we're arguing about. The vast majority of drug stores these days are owned by chains and large outfits who wouldn't know a religious objection if it bit them on the butt.
We agree completely.
My argument is with employees who refuse to do the job they were hired to do. The owner of the business should have the right to make whatever product restrictions he or she wants to.
Going back to the original article post:
Under the rule, which takes effect mid-January, anyone from the brain surgeon to the pharmacy cashier can opt out of participating in care to which they have a moral or religious objection.Why should we allow The State to overrule the employment agreements made between owner and employee?
Why should we allow The State to tell a store owner that they have to allow their employees to cherry-pick what they will or will not sell?
Does this new rule allow the store owner to say, "Bravo for your religious objections, but you aren't doing the job I hired you to do -- get out!" without a penalty??
Or is the religious objector going to get to sue the store owner?
Up above, jwalsh07 accused me of being a statist! On the contrary. I'm defending the rights of the business owner whose employees are going rogue on him.
We agree then. What you quote from the article is the author’s characterization of the proposed law though and I don’t trust that. In past iterations of this proposed law employees were not covered IIRC. That should be enough caveats to get me off the hook. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.