Are personal faith and medical care compatiable?

[akflightmedic]

There has been much debate over pharmacists objecting to the morning after pill or even simple birth control pills and whether or not they have the right to refuse to dispense it due to their religous beliefs. However, now there are proposed bills that extend this right to refuse protection to all health workers. Is this fair? Is this right? I dont know but I would like to hear your views and possible pros and cons. For me, I dont like the idea that when I call 911, the paramedic that responds may decide not to treat me based on his or her personal beliefs. I should get the standard of care despite our opposing views.

For example, most of you know how I feel about christianity and organized religion. However, one time I delivered a full term baby in my rig that died minutes after being born. This was an expected death, the mother knew it would happen and they had requested no heroics be taken. After the delivery, the mother was insistent that the child be baptized before dying. What was I to do? She asked me to do it for her. So I obliged. I opened sterile water, sprinkled the baby and said a few words along with her. She was happy and thankful. The kid was baptized and now I was free to work on the mother. Now obviously, I was in no way obligated to do any of this for her, but I ask myself...why not? What I did, did not change my convictions one iota but it just made one patient eternally happy because her child was saved. I think sometimes in this world, we forget that it is not all about us....it is about the patient....AK

Laws would allow health employees faith to affect care

State measures may shield workers refusing to give certain treatments

By Rob Stein, Washington Post

WASHINGTON — More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter any doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells, and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.

Because many legislatures have just convened, advocates on both sides are predicting that the number debating such proposals will increase further. At least 18 states are already considering 36 bills.

Its already a very hot issue, said Edward Martin of the Americans United for Life, who is advising legislators around the country pushing such bills. I think its going to get even hotter, for lots of reasons and in lots of places.

The flurry of political activity is being welcomed by conservative groups that consider it crucial to prevent health workers from being coerced into participating in care they find morally repugnant — protecting their right of conscience or right of refusal.

This goes to the core of what it means to be an American, said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences.

The swell of propositions is raising alarm among advocates for abortion rights, family planning, AIDS prevention, gays and

lesbians, the right to die and others who see the push as the latest manifestation of the growing political power of social conservatives.

This a very significant threat to patients rights in the United States, said Lois Uttley of the MergerWatch project, who is helping organize a conference in New York to plot a counterstrategy. We need to protect the patients right to use their own religious or ethical values to make medical decisions.

Both sides agree the struggle between personal beliefs and professional medical responsibilities is likely to escalate as more states consider approving physician-assisted suicide, as embryonic stem cell research speeds forward and other advances open more ethical fault lines.

We are moving into a brave new world of cloning, cyborgs, sex selection, genetic testing of embryos, Stevens said. The list of difficult ethical issues involving nurses, physicians, research scientists, pharmacists and other health care workers is just continuing to increase.

Most states have long had laws to protect doctors and nurses from being fired, disciplined, sued or facing other legal action if they do not want to perform abortions.

Conflicts over other health care workers emerged after the morning-after pill was approved and pharmacists began refusing to fill prescriptions for it, with the result that some lost their jobs, were reprimanded or were sanctioned by state licensing boards. That prompted a number of states last year to consider new laws that would either explicitly protect pharmacists or, alternately, require them to fill such prescriptions.

At least seven states are considering laws that would specifically protect pharmacists or pharmacies.

Every other day I hear from pharmacists who are being threatened or told they have to sign something that says they are willing to go along with government mandates, said Francis Manion of the American Center for Law & Justice, which is fighting an Illinois regulation implemented last year requiring pharmacies

[Asysin2leads]

Personally I think those pharmacists should be fired. These sanctimonious holier than thou bible thumpers need to be dragged into the 21st century, now matter if our commander in chief has had a personal encounter with Jay-sus or not. What would happen to a Jehovah's Witness nurse who refused to give a blood transfusion? Friggin nitwits.

[Dustdevil]

What would happen to a Jehovah's Witness nurse who refused to give a blood transfusion?

She would be accommodated, just like the nurse who refuses to participate in abortions, or as I was for refusing to participate in circumcisions. I suppose the difference is that EMT's and medics are a dime a dozen. Nurses and pharmacists are not.

[Michael]

[akflightmedic]

Lets focus more on the EMS provider aspect. Do you see this becoming a problem? Wherre do you see it being an issue? Could this also become an excuse for lazy, burnt out, or just plain incompetent medics who say I didnt do something because it goes against my moral fiber or religous teachings?

[pmedic623]

Could this also become an excuse for lazy, burnt out, or just plain incompetent medics who say I didnt do something because it goes against my moral fiber or religous teachings?

Yes..........

[Yummymedic05]

[Punisher]

[Punisher]

As for whether personal faith and medical care are compatible, the answer is yes. That is so long as you don't allow your beliefs to cloud the realization that you must do what is right for the patient, not what is most morally palatable to you.

Imagine you were an atheist; would you want a fundamentalist Christian nutcase deciding your care based on his distorted view of a religious text? Probably not.

[Asysin2leads]

All right, fine, good, take a position where the public depends on your objective and non biased actions which above and beyond all should be in their best interest and respects their decisions, then put it second to your own sense of self righteousness. But the first one who doesn't do the right thing for one of my patients because of some religious belief while I'm around better be pretty certain of where they stand with God, because he'll be the only one who can save you from me. If your religious beliefs conflict with your job, find a new one. End of friggin' story.