The main thing most everyone is missing is that this is for certain procedures. This is a good thing inline with American Freedoms. You can't force people to go against their conscience and expect a good outcome. This was never about refusing medical services to someone gay or of the LGBTQ community in a medical emergency, it is for certain medical procedures. This is being blown way out of proportion. An example would be a religious person refusing to participate in an abortion of a 8 1/2 month normal pregnancy. I would refuse too.
This is bogus. If no one fights this, it will be a matter of time before doctors will be allowed to refuse care for "religious reasons". This stinks of Pence.
1
@Marc it's truly unfortunate but that is set in place already. healthcare workers can reject patients if they are queer and it conflicts with their religious views
I spent 5 decades in health care. I find this trend despicable. Our job is to CARE for the patients. If you are there to impose your religious or other beliefs you should consider another line of work. Mind your own business, don’t be judgmental and care for your patients.
4
So, if a nurse has a religious objection to heretical people who corrupt the message of the Gospel in the process and use the veneer of faith to further their political agenda, can s/he refuse to treat them?
3
Years ago, as a nurse, when I was assigned to the crash cart, I would explain from the start that I would not be able to engage in the aggressive resuscitation of elderly and brittle patients winding down naturally to their last breath. I would instead comfort and hold their hands... It is a matter of conscience.
Of course I was threatened and told that I had to...It was the law.
I told them that I couldn't because I know that even the movement of my little finger comes from my choice and I would not betray my conscience.
I once arrived early to work and went on the floor to visit with a man who a was young and dying. He asked if I believed in God, and I said " let me get someone else. ".
He said: "No I want you to stay, you're honest."
Whenever I am tempted to skirt the pain and discomfort of honesty I remember that real person, and demand more of myself.
We are anemic from the lack of real moments, real human experience. We can only exercise the highest reaches of our humanity when we have the freedom and the responsibility of being true to our conscience.
Control freaks who think they can create a world of order with coercion and force are creating a world that wrenches the hearts of honest people of conscience.
President Trump has shown which he is. Our Constitution defends individual connscience.... Makes the world that will never be perfectly safe, more safe and comprehensible.
4
This will not end well.
1
I'm assuming murder is still a sin, so can a "Christian" EMT refuse to give life-saving aid to a mass murderer struck by police bullets at the scene of his crime? How about suicide? Isn't that still a sin? Can "Christian" ER staff refuse to save the life of a teenager who slit her wrists? I am sick of the Christian faith being reduced to "I hate gays and abortion." Neither homosexuality nor abortion was singled out by Jesus for condemnation but somehow today's evangelical Christians have made such condemnation the litmus test for their faith. For shame.
12
@abigail49 Don't forget that Jesus was clear about divorce being a sin. So does this rule mean that someone can refuse to treat anyone who is divorced, what if they are cheating on their spouse? Are they going to ask everyone these questions to make sure they don't "condone their lifestyle". What if they don't believe in medication? Can they still be a Dr or Pharmacist? How much of your actual job do you have to be "willing" to do to get paid?
1
Every healthcare professional is well instructed in the basics of medical ethics, starting as part of their educations and extending throughout their careers via licensing boards, professional societies, employers like hospitals, universities and the like. And the bedrock of medical ethics, in addition to do no harm, is that every patient must be treated without making moral judgments. The absolute priority is obtaining the best possible outcome for the patient, and the care provider's biases, or religious beliefs, must not even be a consideration. It is about the patient, not the healthcare worker. I believe that if a healthcare provider has strong moral objections to a type of treatment or a type of patient, the burden is on that healthcare provider to find a job where those convictions have no chance of jeopardizing a patient's health. That is the ethical choice. If the moral convictions are truly that strong, this should be an easy decision to make. If the decision is not easy, then perhaps the conviction is not so strong afterall.
21
@ML Cunningham BRAVO!! WELL SAID! VERY WELL SAID!!
1
Recently, a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) of a patients Power of Attorney was overridden by the charge nurse in a local hospital.
The DNR was contrary to the nurse's religious beliefs and the patient was resuscitated a) against the patients will and b) against that of the patients family. The resuscitation caused 7 more months of hospital stay, extreme agony and pain for the patient and extreme duress for the family. Religion has no place in the decision/effect of a DNR nor in the choice of whether to provide medical relief on the opposite end of the spectrum.
16
@David that is terrifying. Sue the nurse and the hospital who employs her.
6
@David - the nurse should be responsible for the patient's hospital bill.
3
I hope everyone who supports this gets to watch a loved one die because somebody's 'conscience'.
4
Any woman who values her life should do her homework before she gets pregnant: in many areas, Catholic hospitals are the only obstetric care available and they. will. let. you. die. rather than save your life over a fetus's. This law gives them express permission.
5
That’s simply not true.
3
All these self proclaimed "christians" who refuse medical services to people because of their "religion or faith" are hypocritical liars. In the Bible, Jesus clearly tells his followers to minister to all people whether they his followers or not. But , even though there is nt mention of birth control or abortion in the Bible, these self proclaimed followers of Jesus claim that Jesus forbids them from provided either.
10
This is not "free speech & religious freedom liberty"; this is tyranny of a healthcare provider to insert & personally determine whether to deny healthcare to patients based solely upon that provider's own personal religious beliefs.
If used to deny medical treatment & even referrals, this so-called "religious freedom" becomes license to for a religious practitioner to deprive medical care & information that can be vital to the health & well-being of the patient.
This is criminal. This is an abuse & a misuse of power. It is, in almost every case, an unjustifiable intrusion of religious beliefs that have no right to curtail the sacred, professional responsibility of the practitioner to exercise his or her clinical judgment whilst forcing another set of religious beliefs upon both patient & the modalities of treatment.
The rightwing may be ascendant today, yet in their hubristic arrogance and opposition to the age of reason & enlightenment, this too shall pass as the clear-thinking members of the public realize what kind of agenda the conservatives are really imposing upon all of us. This is neither "freedom" nor "liberty," except for conservatives to misuse their "freedom" and "liberty" to abridge our own. This shall not pass without continual challenge & counter-attack. No matter how long it takes, the public must oppose such an infringement upon patients' rights with the utmost vigor & determination. Ultimately, conservative excess & extremism will be swept away.
19
One has been given the freedom to worship as you want but not to force others to believe as you do . This goes counter to what the founding fathers intended . If you choose to be a medical professional then you must render aid to all . I would not want someone like Cathy Decarlo making a decision for me if I choose to have an advanced medical directive , she is not the boss of me . The hypocrisy is overwhelming on Trump's part and these so called evangelicals that believe in the death penalty but not abortion . One cannot pick and choose .
10
Several years ago, prior to my retirement as a general internist, a newly-hired female colleague refused to prescribe birth control to single women because of her religious beliefs, however, she would issue prescriptions without reservation to married women. The logic of all this was beyond my ken, but there really is no logic to be found here. Just a misguided approach to medicine, in which ideology clouds mature clinical judgement. When I graduated from medical school, we recited the “Oath Of Maimonides,” and one particular line has stayed with me all these years:
“May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.”
15
The thought that a practitioner can refuse treatment because of his/her ‘Conscience Rule’ is morally repugnant.
20
@Pam
You said it better than I did, Pam!
2
Medical ethics has now been declared legally dead. My fellow health care professionals can now, legally, refuse to provide care to anyone who doesn't believe what they believe in my private religious or moral life. Republicans, take care what you wish for. My religion condemns hate and violence directed at other humans. My patient load just got much lighter. People who espouse or support those things can get their care somewhere else.
18
I may be a Christian, but I am getting tired of the right wing Christians deciding the law in the US. There must be some way for hospitals and doctors to pick nurses for such procedures as abortion, who are not against it.
12
Not a big surprise, it unveils the truth about those talking about 'religious liberty', it is nothing but a codeword for allowing bigotry and discrimination justified by some religious belief. The law on religious beliefs in the workplace has always been that an employer should try to accomodate the religious beliefs of employees, as long as it reasonable does not interfere with the workings of the place of business. Thus a nurse or doctor can refuse to perform abortions, as long as there are other health providers present who are willing to do the job; but if a pregnant woman comes in after an auto acccident who needs an emergency abortion right away and they can't get others to cover in time, they cannot refuse life treating medical care, likewise if a transgender person came into an ER in bad shape, medical providers cannot refuse to treat them, not can an EMT in the field. What the Trump administration is changing this to religious belief above all, and it looks to me like it doesn't matter if someone dies (so much for the 'Good Christians" of this country, especially evangelicals), you can see things like an EMT refusing to treat an LGBT person, you can see a doctor let a woman die who should have had an emergency abortion, that is how twisted they truly are. These rulings are exactly what the 'religious' want, next it will be allowing discrimination in the workplace, because they claim that religion is above civic law, that is the real reason here.
12
What do we do when an EMT refuses to provide lifesaving efforts to a transsexual severely injured in a traffic accident; or a beating inflicted on a homosexual? Will we empower police to refuse to protect gay citizens? How about a firefighter who’s allowed not to render aid to a known adulterer? Where does this stop? These concerns, sincerely held, may appear absurd to proponents of religious exemptions; but, so does lawfully permitting hospitals and medical professionals the right to not treat the ill or injured.
11
@J.R.
Yes - and a baker who won't make a cake for a gay wedding. ?
1
@J.R.
Easy; Fire that person immediately.
Insurers are now going to have to pay for an additional 10-15 minutes for medical visits as we interview the entire staff to find out first if we're acceptable as patients and then if they'll deign to treat the problem. Reminds me a little of the early years of the AIDs epidemic but without an actual life-threatening, unresearched disease.
9
Dear Christians: if I come across you in a horrible wreck in a car with your fish symbol on it and could render aid, I won’t because I know in your mind it’s God’s will, and who am I to interfere with that?
22
@Paulie: Well, I'll help then because, even though I am not a Christian, Jesus and simple ethics tell us to help all people irrespective of their religion.
3
@Paulie
Of course help; Aren't we ALL God's creatures, (or words to that effect).....
Show that person true Christianity; Besides - you get more flies with honey. Your actions might cause the fishy person to have a change of heart.
1
Leave your beliefs at the workplace door.
13
@Traymn Right! Or find a job that does not conflict with your religious beliefs.
11
I recently retired from nursing. As I understood it from the beginning, I only applied for positions that I thought were both moral and suited to me personally (for example, my competences and comfort would not indicate a surgery career). I served at a home care and hospice agency for over a third of a century. When attempts were made to recruit me for nursing jobs that I did not consider moral, even in the beginning when our agency was new and could not fill my schedule, I did not even consider them.
Perhaps others should act similarly.
13
@Marvant Duhon
To put it another way, Texas hires execution doctors and nurses, to give lethal injections to prisoners sentenced to death. The jobs are not popular so I have read about Texas hiring personnel whose licenses were suspended. So a nurse or doctor could readily be hired for such a position. By the administration's logic, if he or she even before applying had a religious conviction against the death penalty, Texas would have to keep him or her on the job at full pay while no executions were performed.
6
Deceptive headline does not tell the story of the people who suffer and have their Constitutional rights denied. Journalists need to stop letting Trump and his radical followers set the verbal agenda. Please wake up. This is not normal; Trump is not normal. Identify that in headline. Our Founders and Framers were deeply opposed to religion in the government, which is why they purposely left the word “God” out of the Constitution. “We the People” need the NYTimes to tell the truth.
13
The NYT is normalizing the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration here. The article - and especially the headline - fail to capture the immorality of this rule. It's an argument that who's intent would have been clear had it been made during the era of explicit racial segregation.
As part of the licensing process, government has the right and responsibility to insist on equal treatment of customers. Patients, in this case.
13
I am a physician, and in my religion, in my conscience, anyone who supports Trump, or Republicans, is satantic, and is evil in God's eyes. do I have a right to listen to my conscience, and turn them away? I hope so.
21
@riverrunner
In my opinion you show them the way to behave. You might even cause a change of heart in that Trumpite. He may vote differently next time...And - Let's leave Satan out of it, we don't want him wading in, do we. Could increase global warming in a hurry.
1
Jesus of course was a Pacifist and at all times and every opportunity preached care, compassion, kindness and acceptance. He also advocated peace and never promoted war or of going to war to attack and kill others who are the enemy...
So I wonder what would happen to these laws and religious belief protections etc if every serving Christian in the armed forces decided to actually follow the teachings of Jesus and no longer wished or in good conscience have to fight their neighbour and fellow men in bloody conflict and death?
I'm sure they would be either shot for failing to obey orders or jailed for the offence because it was against their beliefs to kill others.
But you are allowed not to bake a cake for a Gay person or help a person get a medical procedure done because of your beliefs , just as some states will charge a mother who loses their baby due to a fall with Murder!
But if you refuse to engage and kill the "enemy" ...another person or people ...that of course is unacceptable and you will be shot, charged or imprisoned if you were to refuse on religious grounds or it went against your beliefs to do so.
Such Hypocrisy permeates so much of those who do these things that they say you have the right to not do...those things that they decide are what beliefs you can have , others can't and God can't even have a say in what beliefs he gave and wants followed... they will determine which ones you can and cannot have.
Religious freedom is only what they allow .
3
And the first time a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist nurse or doctor pulls this on a rich white guy, the narrative will be anti-white discrimination.
If health care workers are asking for this stuff, they got into health care for all the wrong reasons.
14
Next time I'm dying and need life saving medical care I'll remember to pause while dying. My caregivers and I can figure out which have religiously based conscientious objections. I wouldn't want saving my life to upset a person delicate religious beliefs.
16
@George Seely
Good idea; they should take 5 while you do your due diligence.
It seems that the best we can do is be prepared to check ourselves out of institutional care; to take up living an independent life with as little contact with those who wish to control our lives. This decision has consequences that some may find unacceptable. But, that is what life is all about, making choices about how you wish to live and die.
2
Allowing healthcare workers to avoid assisting patients needing medical attention is not religious freedom, it is discrimination.
If a healthcare worker seeks to uphold their religious interpretations above a patient's needs, then they must not practice healthcare.
18
Catholic Hospitals have done it for decades to women coming into the emergency room who are having a miscarriage. They make her suffer rather than do a D&C. Ambulances are legally required to take someone to the closest hospital and women don’t realize they are going to an emergency room that will lie to them rather than let them know that the suffering can be ended. A woman can end up in several days of absolute misery until the miscarriage finally ends on its own. It is immoral, unethical, yet legal.
10
@Patty: Worse, the Catholic Church has created a Hospital management unit, sold their services at very, very lucrative rates to the local hospital with the provision that no one working in the hospital or independent doctors who do abortions can work in the hospital. Ot West is used to be the Sisters of Mercy, but now is the same Catholic Church agency but called Dignity Health.
Why doesn't the headline for this article emphasize the purpose of the "rules" - the institutionalizing of discrimination against homosexuals or anyone by any person who claims to have a religious objection to anyone else's behavior or identity? The rules are an attack on the civil rights of millions of Americans, and bear more than a passing resemblance to the marginalization strategies of the Nazis. Besides the fact that this is bald-faced discrimination against historically persecuted individuals, how would this work in practical terms? Insidious evil's flip-side is cruel absurdity. A woman arrives at a hospital hemorrhaging from a self-induced abortion (the Republicans in her state have outlawed abortion), can a emergency room worker refuse to help her? What if you belong to a small church that believes miscengenation is a sin? Do you deny services to a couple who are of different skin colors - or their child? Or a woman who once had an abortion? Could they ask a woman if she ever had an abortion, or why? Can an administrator ask if someone is gay or trans? Can they ask if someone has ever had sexual relations with someone of the same sex? What if your church holds all living Jews responsible for the death of your Messiah? Could you refuse service to a Jewish person? If they can't ask questions, will these "religious" people determine who they help or serve based on what a person looks like - as all good Nazis did? These rules are simply un-American.
17
@Hudson1
If they cannot stand the heat - get them out of the kitchen.
Be interesting to test this law if the President had a heart attack and was taken to a hospital where the Doctor was Muslim and the doctors family had suffered under Trumps Muslim ban could he under good conscious say "I cannot help this man" and allow him to die.
14
Religion and politics. Do gooders and do nothings. The two biggest hypocrisies in the world.
8
Trump/Pence's new rule allows anyone from a surgeon to a pharmacist to a doctor's receptionist to REFUSE SERVICE to ANY patient based on their personal "religious based" prejudices. Jewish guy needs surgery; doctor can refuse. LGBT woman needs stitches; nurse can refuse.
How is this ethical? How is this American?
Here's what's going to happen: an evangelical person will be discriminated against by a medical professional and THEN this rule to be rescinded. Sad but true.
12
This has the smell of Mike Pence and his evangelical handlers' fingerprints all over it. Otherwise, I doubt would have come up with this on his own.
14
The choice of adopting a religion is nothing more than arbitrary opinion like a color preference. It is an arbitrary personal choice of opinion and should not be glorified as anything beyond that. The fact that some people have an emotional attachment to it does not make it one iota more significant than, say, a preference for the color red. Even if it is a deep love for the color red.
What this rule does is allow people to flout anti-discrimination laws completely arbitrarily simply because they are emotionally attached to their arbitrary opinion about choice of "religion". It is logically equivalent to their opinion about obeying the law. This rule is effectively saying about following the law - take it or leave it - your opinion, your choice, that's OK.
That by itself is enough, from a rational standpoint, to end this attack on the constitution, without getting into the ridiculousness of religion itself.
6
Consider that Yes 60% favor the concept but 95% reject legalizing euthanasia after they learn the extent of wrongful deaths allowed.
Potential for abuse abounds with laws allowing euthanasia.
There are many documented cases of abuses in the Oregon model death laws. The problem cases only come to light through media and medical or legal journals, but many are in documents on the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund website.
There is no oversight or assurance provided by the Oregon model death policy that can prevent wrongful deaths due to:
1. A wrong diagnosis.
2. A wrong prognosis.
3. When unaware of available treatments.
4. When there is no access to pain management.
5. When denied funding for medical treatment.
6.When the mentally ill are at risk (a huge possibility).
7. When there is ableist judgement of “better off dead” which is a prevalent medical and social bias.
8. When there is undetected bullying or coercion.
9. When there is a killing after changing their mind or while resisting. This is likely in 20 percent of assisted suicides, according to an extrapolation from Oregon statistics.
10. When the social contagion of suicide is involved (likely in 5-12 percent of cases, as per the Centers for Disease Control).
11. When the death is not a rapid or peaceful death (likely 25-72 percent of the the time according to a study by Bill Gallerizzo).
Expect expansion of categories due to “category creep” in this climate of promiscuous medical standards.
Care Giver
2
@Bradley Williams. Where do you get these 11 commandments? What is to stop religious objections where the medical professional makes a wrong judgement and the person dies. Two guys come in for treatment, father and son. They are holding hands. The “professional” determines they are gay and refuses to treat them? Man dies. OPPS does not count.
I am not a medical worker, but it I were, does this mean that I could refuse to treat Republicans, or Trump supporters or “evangelicals” based on my religious beliefs? I have very strong religious objections to those groups. I suspect Trump and his enablers never thought that doctors or nurses could refuse to treat them on “religious grounds.”
14
@scotty
Nope doesn't mean that at all
@marilyn durbin if they can refuse to treat LGBT patients then he can surely refuse to treat Trump supporters or anti-gay people. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Is this the same "conscience rule" that permitted this administration to separate small children, toddlers, and infants from their parents, send those children all around the country to various facilities, and then forget where they put them and say "it's not our responsibility? This isn't even taking into account those children who DIED, or were sexually assaulted while in custody."
10
@Scott
Hmm..obama built that buddy. The child trafficking is preferable to you cause they claim to be the parents?
1
@marilyn durbin Obama did NOT build that.
6
The US seems to have a more and more unhealthy behavior as soon as it relates to religion and religious freedom.
The ability to refuse people healthcare because you're not open-minded enough opens a very real door to discrimination.
Under the pretense of freedom, it feels that your politicians (I am not a US citizens) are pushing for enabling the freedom to discriminate, the freedom to promote hate, and freedom to promote violence. Most countries would try to limit those, somehow that's not the case here.
10
Healthcare professionals can deny treatment to anyone if it goes against their "deeply held religious beliefs." Any old bigot can say that and who is going to call them a liar? Healthcare in this country is in enough of a mess. Now we're going to make it worse.
We can't allow healthcare providers to hide their beliefs until it is too late for the patient. This is not a one-way street. Tobacco products, certain medications, alcohol and other legal products must warn people against their dangers. If we are going to allow hospitals and healthcare providers to deny care to certain people it must be publicized. Any medical facility that employs people who refuse to treat people in categories that they don't like should have a sign at every entrance: Warning: This facility employs people who may not treat you because of their deeply-held religious beliefs. What's fair is fair.
14
@Carole A. Dunn
Yep get those signs out, lol
Advanced Directives are another no-no:
What does that say ... hospitals can no longer require them when you have an operation? Going to inform the American Bar Assoc to contact all attorneys to no longer use this document?
For instance, if you have an advanced directive with "do not resuscitate" - the hospital, your doctor and your relatives can ignore your last wishes. The government can force you to live in agony or zonked out on drugs in your final days!
arrggghhhh
10
Scripps Medical is an aggregation of five hospitals in San Dieg,o one of which "Scripps Mercy in the central city area that was a merger with the Catholic Mercy Hospital that dates from the 19th century.
It is technically state of the art, yet this merger included the agreement that it would operate on Catholic principles. There is no public notice of these limitation. It would have meant a directive not to sustain life if the cognitive damage was severe after my operation would have been ignored. .
I demanded that a notice be prominently displayed of their principles such as these that went to the CEO of the complex- with no response. It turns out that many such mergers have occurred throughout the country, mostly unknown by patients.
Trump's new directive will shift the balance towards limiting such patient control of decisions such as this to secular hospitals.
10
@Call Me Al
That is one of the problems with the Hobby Lobby Law and with the whole religious exemptions, it leaves out that in many places hospitals have merged and hospitals tied to religious groups, for example Catholic Hospitals, have often become the only hospitals available to people and this is dangerous. Catholic Hospitals, for example, generally refuse to recognize the need to save a mother's life, so if a woman needs an emergency abortion they will be able to refuse this, and given how many parts of this country have only 1 hospital in the area, this can mean a death sentence for the mother; not to mention with hospitals run by evangelicals, not wanting to treat LGBT people or denying care to Muslism or people who are not one of 'theirs'.
The sad part is that people of good faith will not retaliate, I don't doubt a born again Christian could easily refuse to save the life of an LGBT person, I doubt the same would be true of an LGBT medical provider when it comes to the born again Christian types.
4
Everyone should regularly read various healthcare workers' reddit threads. Yesterday I spent a couple horrified hours down a wormhole of nurses' full disclosures. What an eye-opener, for this and all other healthcare-related topics. Protect your health preventatively as much as possible. Blech.
4
I am objecting to guns from a religious perspective as they cause serious harm. Can I now as refuse seeing gun owners?
Religious feelings or morales need to be kept out of patient care. They will undoubtedly cause harm and we have sworn to first not do harm.
9
Should a health care person, be opposed to the patients wish, he or she can either find another position or asked to be reassigned to another health care section. One Must always respect the wish of the patient.
4
The Constitution grants us all the right to worship as we please. Nowhere does it say that any religious belief can be imposed upon another. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that anybody's rights of commerce can be interfered with for the reason of "firmly held belief". I firmly hold the belief that abortion is legal and acceptable, that gay and transgender individuals possess every right that any straight individual holds and that any restriction of the rights afforded under the Constitution as progressed over time is illegal. If any religious organization wishes to restrict the legal rights of others based upon their or their leaderships 'firmly held beliefs' they should be stripped of any tax exemption status and be prosecuted for violations of the rights of others. That is my firmly held belief.
17
@PG
The constitution only has the first amendment, that is true. However, by extension, because the government is often a big employer, concepts of religious freedom in the workplace often are caused by cases involving government workers (for example, members of public unions who wear a beard or turban for religious reasons that are otherwise banned), and courts have to rule on these, and once it is ruled for a government employer it also applies to companies doing business with the government. What the courts have (reasonably) ruled is that businesses are supposed to recognize the faith of their employees and accomodate it, as long as it doesn't burden the business or hinder it (for example, an employee who hates LGBT people as "sinners" cannot refuse to serve an LGBT customer if the employer says that hurts their business, or an employee who is vocally anti LGBT and is fired because of the loss of business with LGBT customers).
It is ironic that the pro business GOP, who decries all these rules hindering employers, say employers have the right to do what they see fit in running their busines, suddenly want to interfere with this relationship when it comes to the 'religious' ie bigoted born again Christians.
3
I have been a nurse for many years and now am a professor in a nursing program I have always practiced and now teach my students that they need to evaluate their moral framework and if there is a conflict between their beliefs and what their employment may require they need to decide to not place themselves in that situation and let that be known. But that is a carefully thought out decision made prior to a planned procedure or practice. A nurse by license and professional ethical standards can not abandon a patient in need of care if that places the patient at risk. Abandonment is a reason for a nurse to loose their license.
11
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe as one wishes. It does not afford one the right to enforce one's own beliefs upon another. This is the antithesis of religious freedom and one of the main reasons for which this country of ours was founded. This tears at the very fabric of our constitution.
18
There is a big difference between elective health procedures like abortion, sex changes, assisted suicide, and cosmetic procedures; and health procedures to fight genuine disease. Health care workers and businesses should be able to opt out of all elective procedures that have intended or unintended moral consequences. The catholic health care providers have established a good balance.
4
@Eugene Patrick Devany I completely disagree. That stance leaves way too many loopholes. What the law is saying is if a person is transgender (already has received surgery in the past) and has a heart attack, a health care provider can refuse to provide life saving service because of his transgender status, even though the medical procedure does not have anything to do with "changing his sex" This is unacceptable in our country.
9
@Eugene Patrick Devany
If I stop to aid someone who's just had an accident, likely about to bleed to death, and I spot a cross around his neck, I -- a lifelong antitheist -- presumably can opt out of helping. Think of it as keeping the good balance truly balanced.
@Eugene Patrick Devany
What a mess for the hospital administration to deal with; think of the categories there would have to be for the nurses - won't do this, will do that, might not help if.... No- I say, if you think you're too good for this patient, or that patient, but you might help that one over there, then get a job in the subway system picking up the butts. They are all the same.
I am in favor of not forcing people to do things against their moral beliefs. Therefore, there are two options. Either people who object to certain aspects of their job should go into another field, or the hospital, pharmacy or clinic should know in advance the beliefs of each worker and should make sure there is someone who is not adverse to doing his/her job on the premises (and referred by the refuser) at all times. Leaving people without care is not an option.
11
“People and organizations do not have to shed their religious beliefs simply to help others in health care,” said Roger Severino. He's not speaking about helping others; he's speaking of *refusing* to help others (apparently while being paid as health-care workers). That seems to be a Republican ideal.
14
Would this rule also allow employers to ask potential employees if they hold religious convictions that might interfere with the performance of their duties? At the very least, some stipulation that potential employees inform employers who hire them must be part of this equation. Otherwise what is to guard against health care workers who refuse to perform essential job functions?
If workers can discriminate against patients, it seems that employers should be able to discriminate against people who take jobs that they cannot perform. Or would this not be discrimination?
To use an analogy, is this like a vegan who takes a job at a steakhouse and then refuses to do anything but prepare garden salads and make baked potatoes (no butter of course)?
14
@Pete. As a healthcare business owner, I think your point is a fair one. Given how fundamental religious liberty is in our social contract, the rules of reasonable mandatory accomodation would then be required as is provided for in many other employment law contexts. Thus, you wouldn't be able to refuse or limit an individual's livilihood just because it might impact some of your patients or if the job could reasonably be configured in a way that respects the applicant or employee's conscience.
1
@FriscoDB
That "reasonably be configured" is frightening. What is reasonable? If I need help, how do I know I won't be allowed to suffer, be crippled, die if the only employee around when I need help refuses because his or her god says I'm dirt?
How can we be at this stage of idiocy after so many centuries of life on earth?
1
As a physician, in healthcare we are OBLIGATED to help all who are in need. It is not up to us to judge who and how we will assist. This statement by the president is the very opposite of being patient centric, although not surprising for a president who doesn’t understand the words compassion or empathy. If one feels the task at hand violates their personal morals it is their OBLIGATION to provide care until care can be transferred to another qualified provider. If a healthcare provider can’t do that there are alternative employment opportunities they may wish to consider.
24
@BrewDoc as a pharmacist I totally agree. If you cannot fulfill the oath you took when you became a professional, look for another job. This is abhorrent.
9
Trump is grasping at straws. He sees his chances of reelection decreasing by the day and is taking whatever desperate measures he can think of to pander to his ever shrinking base. Our only remedy is to vote, and remind everyone we know to do the same.
14
So I suppose that the health care worker who denies your end of life directive and foists some life saving treatment on you that you don't want will be willing to pay for said treatment?
13
Does this mean that if Sarah Sanders shows up in a clinic and the doctors and nurses don't agree with her religion, they don't have to treat her. Can doctors and nurses refuse care to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans based on religion? Can pharmacists who are anti-semitic refuse prescriptions to Jews?
22
@Jacquie
One would think so, but unfortunately you can read "Christian" beliefs are the only one that will count here, methinks.
6
It seems that his majesty Emperor Don and his top aide Cardinal Pence want to turn the nation into a theocracy. Well at least one that favors their narrow concept of a theocracy. They want to interfere with how our health systems work, whom they serve, and what the outcomes can only be.
A good example of the kinds of harm they could do is amply available in the current measles mess. There a narrow cult of believers helped to spread doubt in the way diseases were dealt with. What do we have? A national outbreak of a disease that was once eradicated.
No, Pastor Pence hospital employees who value their 'consciences' over the instructions of better informed medical doctors is not the way of the future.
19
I've read through dozens of these comments and haven't found 1 that supports the new rule.
How odd.
Is it really so outrageous to have a rule that prevents a nurse from being literally forced to either assist in performing an elective abortion or losing her job? REALLY?
3
Teri, this rule is not about forcing anyone to participate in *elective* abortions. There’s already a federal law for that. This rule is about denying necessary medical care to anyone for religious reasons: a pregnant woman who wants to give birth but is at risk of dying due to severe preeclampsia, a gay man with AIDS in the hospital, a transgender woman seeking to fill her estrogen prescription, a bisexual person wanting a pap smear, a person with a birth control prescription to fill, a black person brought to an emergency room because of a heart attack, and so on.
Do you really believe healthcare workers should be able to deny any of these people medical care or referrals? If you do, you deserve to be refused service just so you know what it feels like to know that someone doesn’t care about you and your health or survival. I’m nonbinary and bisexual and my wife is a transgender woman. We have been denied healthcare—just for being visibly transgender.
36
@Teri, Actually, I was an OR Tech when Roe V Wade passed. The Head RN called us (the staff) in and said that if we were uncomfortable scrubbing in, just let her know and she would assign someone else to the procedure. THIS is different. This permits patients being turned away.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe as one wishes. It does not afford one the right to enforce one's own beliefs upon another. This is the antithesis of religious freedom and one of the main reasons for which this country of ours was founded. This tears at the very fabric of our constitution
13
@Teri
Yes, Teri, it is. How would you like it if the shoe was on the other foot? If you were dying and someone else's beliefs prevented them from caring for you, and they allowed you to die?
What if you had incurable cancer and were in agonizing pain and all you could think of was an end to it, but a religious person required that you remain in agony, tortured for days or weeks instead of gently easing you out of this world?
6
I have seen the following refusals to care for patients citing conscientious objection: refusal to care for HIV, Hep C, trangendered, gay, muslim, women in full Burqua, black, and jewish patients. Nurses who refuse to call in Rx for morning after pills but have no objections to caring for married men with STDs. Objection to birth control but no objections to Cialis and Levitra. Refusal to care for women on GYN hospital floors who have been told they have a nonviable fetus and deliver early (which some consider an abortion), giving birth control to postabortion patients while in the hospital, refusing to care for teens with STD infections that have spread to their ovaries and need IV antibiotics. I have seen pharmacists that refuse to fill birth control or morning after pill prescriptions (when it was a subscription) and then refused to give the prescription back to the woman. Through it all the objections are the same - they are all about decisions demonizing mostly women, and outsider males. This is not about religion or freedom, its about power.
At one time health care staff objected to flu shots. But when Medicare stopped paying for illnesses derived inside the hospital, hospitals started saying "get the flu shot or you don't work here."
We are in health care to serve, not to dictate. Women and mentally ill people have a higher use of medical care. We don't get to choose.
52
@Karen - It is always about power. Thank you for posting this.
7
Is this some form of proselytizing? What are we to learn about their god as they treat us this way?
Perhaps they appoint themselves as their god’s instruments (or at least tell us so), despite the fact that their god has made plain that judgement is his.
It is an interesting way to draw converts. Hmm. /s
11
Constitutional religious freedom is the freedom to worship your faith, not one implemented by the government.
It is not, nor was it ever a way to get around laws.
These laws have nothing to do with religious freedom as mentioned in the Constitution, they are all about giving 1 group the ability to discriminate against another.
32
Back to the land of trial-balloon questions about what the doctor thinks of bisexuality before I give them full answers to questions about my sex life, I suppose. My GP is fine with anything as long as it's consensual, but... well, you never know with urgent care doctors, and I'd really rather avoid not getting treatment because the doctor has "conscience issues" with treating me and won't refer me out.
12
This was a major mistake and poorly thought through, IMO. I'm not against people, including private vendors, having a right to refuse to "participate" based on religious conviction, but it should NOT extend to medical care. EVERYONE should have a right to medical care! Bad move, Trump Administration.
7
Lets see "conscience" when they have a patient that can't afford treatment
6
I am a Christian, and I have to say this.......This is NOT based on Christianity, not Christ's Christianity, anyway. Denying medical care to someone, to anyone, is not what Jesus taught or did. We have a right to our convictions and our discernment, but this is judgement. We all (humanity) are sinners, we all will be judged someday, WE ARE NOT THE JUDGE! This is extremism and like all extremism, it crosses the line. This is wrong.
62
@krenna
Thank you, thank you thank you.
8
@krenna "We all (humanity) are sinners, we all will be judged someday, . . . " Except this is the very point here. You are including me in this mix (all humanity) based on your personal religion which has NOTHING to do with me.
Being a "sinners" is your bit, not mine. Mostly it appears your God made you to worship him/her/it. Sound rather twisted to me. An all powerful, all knowing God that needs subservient worshipers. As you say THIS IS WRONG.
1
Meanwhile I recall some guy telling some story about some guy finding some other guy in trouble, and ignoring his religion's aversion to some other guy's religion and helping him out anyways. Something about neighbors and love and stuff. Anybody else remember anything about that? I dunno, maybe I made it up. It was all kind of a long time ago.
49
@Bonnie
Britten, B. Latin text by Wilkinson, P. Cantata Misericordia (1963).
4
@Bonnie, the Good Samaritan
I can't believe I read the whole article without remembering this parable I heard so many times growing up--until I saw your stylish comment. Thank you for reminding us lapsed Catholics and other doubters that it took Jesus himself to solve this conundrum of divergent moral rules, so we shouldn't be surprised Trump and his minions are having trouble with it.
11
@Bonnie
Yeah, I think the story teller’s first name starts with J, and the guy in trouble was a victim of a violent robbery, and the helper guy even paid for convalescence care of the victim guy. Something like that.
6
States, healthcare companies, non-profits and clinics, and medical professionals and people will challenge it in court when discriminated by this order because it contradicts federal and state laws and regulations, besides medical ethics and standards. And employees who exercise their "rights" under this EO will face possible termination.
6
Years ago I spent an evening pre-surgery in an OB/GYN ward. The nurses on duty were super nice to me. They were snippy and dismissive to the other 3 women, delaying getting them things they needed. All four of us looked at each other wondering what was going on. As we talked it came out the other 3 were in for abortions. (Something I had no problem with.)I was there for a cancer biopsy. The nurses made sure the other women knew how they felt about them.
The thing is, if I had to be treated by nurses who made their disapproval known it would not help me to feel better or get better. Maybe forcing people to do something they really don't want to do is not the best course for the patients. The nurses certainly made the other women feel bad.
7
@calannie
Calannie,
It does make a difference, and not doing so undermines confidence in the hospital institution too.
There could be other principles one can drawn from: compassion and hospitality.
7
@calannie
Or maybe the judgemental nurses should find something else to do for a living.
5
@calannie Nope. They received the care they intended to receive. That is what is important, and what would change with this new law. They would not suddenly have cheerful nurses providing them abortions, they would be at risk of being turned away. Much worse. You know this.
When it comes to my health care, I prefer freedom from religion. Trump’s Just shoring up the single-issue Evangelical base.
20
Health care delivery organizations (hospitals, clinics, etc.) should therefore be required to advertise whether they employ people who may refuse to treat you because of their "deeply held religious beliefs."
23
Can health care institutions now make adherence to their policies a condition for employment?? In my opinion health care employees are people at work, people with a job description, people from whom patients/clients can rightfully expect appropriate care. There was a woman ( 12 years ago) left alone, bleeding into her sheets in the recovery room, after an elective abortion of an anencephalic fetus because the nurse on duty at a Catholic Hospital in Santa Cruz refused to attend to her needs. The nurse was refusing to do her job. With the expansion of Catholic owned hospitals many legal procedures and situations are at risk. Virtually none of these hospitals, with rare exceptions like in Washington State, ever inform prospective patients of their policies and practices that vary from legally expected support for procedures such as birth control or exercising a right to die.
12
I’m nonbinary and bisexual and my wife is a lesbian trans woman. We have been discriminated against in healthcare. Someone in an ophthalmology office didn’t like trans women and purposely changed both of our glasses prescriptions. This discrimination cost us hundreds of dollars. In another instance, my wife was in the hospital for a week. The hospital is affiliated with the Catholic Church. There were no other options at the time. The nurses refused to give my wife her estrogen HRT, saying, “we can’t give you that here.”
LGBTI people are afraid as we watch our existing civil and human rights stripped away and we see all of the state anti-LGBTI bills and federal rules under consideration. We’re also getting angry. We are good people. Our lives are not less important than the lives of straight, cisgender people. Some people are using their medieval, false beliefs about LGBTI people to deny us our humanity. Denying LGBTI people necessary medical care because of false religious myths is unacceptable. Don’t think we’re going to roll over and let anti-LGBTI religious people harm us. We’re not going back in the closet, either. If you don’t accept LGBTI as fully equal to yourself, stay out of the healthcare field.
Anyone who chooses to work in the healthcare field in any capacity has an ethical obligation to serve ALL patients. Religious excuses for refusing to serve patients are pathetic and wrong. Talk about taking the moral low road while claiming the high road.
37
So, I have a "right" to refuse and "protections" against ... doing my job?
14
The headline is wrong. He did not strengthen “healthcare workers,” etc., he destroyed health care for women who may need abortions or birth control pills, LGBTQ people who need prescriptions, and a myriad of others whose needs do not fit “healthcare workers” personal criteria. This is just another shame and blight on this country foisted by a man trying to keep his religious (“Christian”) base in line.
28
Funny how religious healthcare workers and pharmacists and bakers never refuse to treat divorcees or bankers (usury) or adulterers or people who eat shellfish, etc. Its like their Bible only consists of one verse, the one about gay men in Leviticus, plus an addendum about abortion, a topic not even addressed.
If this deeply ridiculous executive order had been handed down in the Seventies, would that have given Mormon doctors the right not to treat black patients on the religious grounds that they were cursed by Jehovah?
21
The headline of this story really bugs me. How about:
"Trump administration weakens patient's rights, compromises health care for millions"
41
@Debbie Smith
I agree, and why isn't it on page 1? I hope the NY Times will give this more coverage, as this is a HUGE story.
3
@Debbie Smith
Some of these policies really do harm and maybe even kill people. EMT's and Ambulance Drivers are included. You have a heart attack, call an ambulance .... they get to your house ... sorry, you are gay .... bye.
And measles can kill people. So refusing to vaccinate your child can kill her and/or others.
4
So now so-called "religious" medical personnel want to be in a position to reject the stated wishes of the patient in an "advance medical directive." Where does this insanity stop?
If you don't want to be in a position to deal with any type of medical situation, then don't enter the medical field. This is nothing more than discrimination aimed at limiting the right of a woman to have an abortion, the right of a man to have a vasectomy, the right of a patient to decide which medical treatments they want to end as they are dying, etc.
This isn't about "religious freedom" as that flagrant fraud Pence intoned, it's about inequality, bigotry, hatefulness, homophobia, and treating transgender people as less than human.
This is a flat out disgraceful enshrinement of discrimination.
30
Some test cases to find out exactly how deep and wide the Administration and it's far-right Christian promoters intend this to go. In all cases, assume a small store with only a single cashier or a small pharmacy with only one pharmacist on-shift.
1 - Mormon cashiers refusing to help a customer because their basket includes alcoholic or caffeinated beverages.
2 - Cashiers of various faiths refusing service because of pork or beef in the cart
-- repeat #2 based on various types of vegetarian, vegan, ovo-lacto beliefs of particular cashier......
3 - Pharmacists refusing to dispense Viagra or similar prescriptions to unmarried men or men whose spouse is post-menopause - or first requiring a waiting period, a lecture, permission from the man's wife, and hey, give the guy an invasive body scan
4 - Cashiers who are pacifists or vegans refusing to ring up fishhooks, guns or ammunition in a sporting goods store so they don't aid carnivory.
5 - Hotel clerk refusing single room (even with two beds) to pairs of people without a) marriage certificate; b) birth certificates (with gender); c) legal proofs of familial relationship - oh, and check for alcohol as rejection criteria, too.
Personal beliefs and conscience are personal. If the job conflicts with your belief, and your employer can't continue offering full service due to that, it's your responsibility to go elsewhere to continue practicing your belief without imposing harm on the public.
28
@b fagan
I've actually had a case where I was checking out, my order included pork products, and the cashier was a woman in a hijab. When she got to that, there was a subtle wince, and she used one of the plastic bags as a sort of makeshift glove so she didn't have to touch the ham package itself. She never said a word. She certainly didn't refuse to check me out.
9
@Amanda - yep - that's how it should happen.
Years ago I was in a steak house - one of the very old-school ones where they'd actually bring out a large tray of the raw cuts they offered. When we asked the waitress which was her favorite, she let us know she was a vegan, so couldn't make a personal recommendation.
She also said she wasn't trying to get others to follow her personal choice, and she didn't feel hypocritical getting a very well-paying job even though 99% of the customers were ordering meat.
4
@b fagan
It would be better if she left that alone completely and said something like - a lot of people choose this steak and really like it!
I don't trust evangelical health care workers, and this is the reason why. How am I supposed to know if they are going to alter, undermine or deny my care based on their own personally held religious beliefs? I can't trust these people to treat me the way I want to be treated, so my only option is to avoid them whenever I can.
The healthcare system in this country is already so difficult to navigate, the last thing we need are more loopholes that can be used to create more obstacles for patients seeking care. If you are a healthcare worker, just do your job. if your job is forcing you to choose between your job responsibilities and your religious beliefs, the obvious solution is to GET A DIFFERENT JOB.
22
This is a rule based on a fiction. It ignores the lives of real, palpable humans. Religion was designed to prevent violations of humanity, but not here, apparently. Is this not insanity ?
14
NY Times:
The headline for this article on the front page of your website is
"President Trump strengthened protection of health care workers who oppose procedures on religious or moral grounds"
That sounds fairly positive doesn't it?
Yet, this policy is nothing more than a full out assault on rights of many, many people to healthcare because Trump consistently panders to some of the most narrow-minded and least tolerant voters in the country. I think he calls them Christians.
Could I suggest that you change your headline so that it is more balanced and accurate?
How about:
"President Trump endangers the healthcare rights of millions in a purported attempt to strengthen protections of health care workers."
Speaking as a gay man, I have absolutely no intention of ever being a second class citizen in my own country.
To that end, I'd ask that your headlines more accurately reflect the story.
29
I honestly believe that both patients and health care practitioners with any shred of integrity should leave these religious impositionists so ostracized that, protections or not, they are left unable to function in our economy. Boycott their businesses, ban their practices, start a list. Leave them as destitute as they want to make anyone who disagrees with them. Let them acutely feel the economic and unsalubrious hardship they have worked so hard to impose on everyone else.
13
So does this include politicians?
5
@DBR
"My conscience forbids me to make laws restricting what others can legally do, which makes me pretty well useless as a politician. But yes, I'm going to keep running, and yes, I still get paid normally."
3
@Amanda
....and get my health care paid for, thanks to the taxpayers.
Anyone who refuses care based on this discrimination should be sued for medical negligence as well as the hospital that employs the bigoted person.
23
@Patriot 1776any doctor should have their credentials yanked as they are quite literally breaking their oath.
9
“People and organizations do not have to shed their religious beliefs simply to help others in health care,” said Roger Severino, the director at the H.H.S. office for civil rights.”
Uh, actually, yes, yes they do. Think about what the above quote means. I thought the very essence of religious belief is to, indeed, help others.
12
Can a surgeon refuse to perform an organ transplant or resuscitate a dying patient because to do so would be “playing God” and would be offensive to that surgeon’s belief system?
11
Trump defends health care workers who discriminate against patients based on personal preference? Health care by religion went out with voodoo, even with vaccine deniers and Christian Scientists withholding the best solutions from children.
Trump's retro-time machine for science and government must be destroyed. It is not the 1950's any more, no matter how much his psyche wishes for the good old days of his spoiled brat childhood.
13
The worse thing about these draconian directives is that it's unlikely they can bve rescinded anytime soon. Same for refusing to immunize children on "religious" grounds. And why not control the need for abortions by promoting and counseling (i(n middle schols and high schools) re the use of effective, safe, confidentially provided contraceptves ?
11
Discriminating because of religion is illegal. Just because someone is a different religion than I am now means they can, on the basis of religion, refuse to serve me? Does that apply to taxes that support a military that violates the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, too?
18
If your personal beliefs and sanctimonious judgement of the sins of others prevent you from providing care to the sick then please stay out of the healthcare profession because you do not meet the ethical requirements.
20
I’m a nurse and agnostic, with beliefs as valid as anyone’s. Should I refuse to participate in the care of an evangelical vitalist?
This is not rooted in care, this is rooted in fundamentalist bigotry. It has no place in healthcare, but if this is the short-sighted route the Trump/Pence administration and its supporters pray to go, then the unintended consequences for everyone will be swift and harsh.
24
OK, so I provide a service that many folks need. I can now freely discriminate against any Trump supporter because it goes against my religious convictions as to the policies he has put into place. Got it. I can't wait to ask the first person asking for my services whether they support Trump and then tell them to go find another provider. If they die on my doorstep then so be it.
28
Smart CEOS should convert to Christian Science. Then all forms of health care would be against their religion, and they wouldn't have to provide any form of health insurance for their employees.
14
If I am a religious person whose faith holds that women should and cannot be denied an abortion if that is their choice, does this new “rule” not give me the right and duty to perform that abortion no matter what government prohibitions may be in place. Seems like this rule is a two sided sword.
8
Religious objections should have no place in a hospital or medical setting. If you object then you should find a new job.
The United States has taken “religious freedom” to the extreme. The most frustrating part of the whole thing is that these people are basing their religious objections and prejudice on Bronze Age myths. It defies logic.
17
Trump making sure he doesn’t lose his Evangelical base, without them he doesn’t have much .
8
Religion gets used to justify a number of odious actions and positions; People justified racism and laws against mixed-race societies and marriages by quoting The Bible; they have justified environmental destruction based upon The Bible. They have justified pogroms, wars and ethnic cleansing based upon The Bible. Positions against vaccinations, birth control, same-sex relationships, etc., etc., etc. by quoting some passage or the other from The Bible. On and on it goes.
Religion lets us cloak our preferences, prejudices and politics in "respectability and morality", when in fact they are only what they are. The USA is a country based upon self-evident truths, not some superstitious nonsense used to justify indecencies such as forced birth, racism and ignorance. It's time we get back to those self-evident truths.
9
The anti-vaccination prophets now have another avenue to deny immunization to children.
Unbelievable, unless considered in context of trumpublican corruption.
16
@Myrasgrandotter If we could back to the days when unvaccinated children could not attend public school, we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that was unconstitutional, and here we are today, diseases thought to be "dead" making a come-back because of unvaccinated children. We allowed the rights of some parents to put their children at risk to put every child at risk. I believe private vendors should have the right to choose not to participate in certain activities, but I do not believe it should extend to medical care. EVERYONE should have a right to medical care. This went too far in the battle of religious rights vs civil rights.
8
If you are not willing to do the job, get another one. Period.
20
I hope those with these 'religious objections' advertise themselves as such so I can take my business elsewhere.
25
“The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights.” If that double speak title doesn’t send a chill up your spine I don’t know what will. Maybe Trump is being guided by someone who really understands the old USSR propaganda machine.
17
@ann, he is. Trump spent over an hour on the phone Friday morning with his Svengali, Vladimir Putin, who is an expert at the old USSR propaganda machine. Where did you think Trump was getting all his talking points and directives?
America is in deep, serious trouble. I fear the country is lost and may never come back from the Trump regime, especially if Trump remains in office for the 20 months left in his term without being impeached—or driven out by millions of Americans in the streets for months like South Koreans did from late 2016-early 2017. A second term would finish off democracy for good.
3
What religion’s foundations disallow gender affirmation surgery?? Did Jesus ask gay people to abstain from worshipping him? The 10 commandments outlaw coveting thy neighbors wife - not gay people.
9
If your religion is an obstacle in providing the best services to your patient, choose another line of work. For exemple if an abortion is the only way to save the life of the woman, are you willing to let the woman died? And that in the name of your religious value?
21
I guess it’s ok to provide medical treatment to a wife beater, adulterer, divorced person or bank robber, just not to LGBT people.
24
Republicans allow religious extremists to deny healthcare
THAT is your headline. If you are a healthcare provider your DUTY is to provide healthcare. NOT to pick and chose what healthcare you will provide based on your sectarian extremist interpretation of books written before science existed.
25
Curious headline for a reproductive rights story.
5
This administration does what it can to ensure that Christians can exercise their religious freedom through veiled discrimination, but does nothing to ensure that Jews and Muslims can exercise their religious freedom by praying in a house of worship without being murdered.
17
I doubt this is what Jesus had in mind.
15
This is evil. I know several couples where one partner was sterilized because a future pregnancy would have endangered the wife's life. How dare these arrogant "religious" people claim to be pro-life?! They are pro-death and disability for women.
20
I think religious automobile repairmen should refuse to service the expensive cars of rich people because that is a sign of gluttony avarice and greed and is therefore religiously offensive.
I think religious public school teachers should throw children out of class who do not respect their mother and father.
I think religious dress designers should refuse to sell clothing to women who are jealous of their neighbor and want to own the same dress.
I think religious music store owners should refuse to sell CDs to young fans who worship their favorite pop idol more than God.
I think people who have said “god damnit” should be refused goods and services of any kind
I think a religious country should not elect a president who lies pathologically, steals from charities, and pays porn stars to keep quiet about having an adulterous affair.
27
I have been a physician for more than 40 years. I teach my students and residents that healthcare is NEVER about physicians, nurses, pharmacists, administrators or anyone else who interacts with patients. It is always about the patient. If you, as someone who chooses to be in the healthcare profession think otherwise, then you should do something else. I was taught that the only consideration is what is best for the patient, not what is best for you as a caregiver. The obligation of a physician is to care for a patient and to lead the other folks involved in that care. If those other people are offended by the plan of care for the patient, they can leave. The only person that matters is always the patient and what is medically appropriate for that patient at that time. I am saddened and astonished that somehow this lesson is not taught to everyone involved in patient care.
90
Bravo and thank you!!
18
On a tangentially related topic, I think there should be prayer in public schools. In fact, I think prayers should be said for every religion that is represented by the student body of a particular school whether that be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism or Wiccan. In fact, I think the whole school day should be devoted to prayer. What’s that you say? Prayer in school is really only reserved for Christianity. Well, you see, that is the problem. Religious freedom means freedom for all religious beliefs. And hence, that is the problem with the Trump administration’s view on religious freedom. If Christians are allowed to discriminate against LGBT folks then other religions can discriminate (deny products or services) to those they find antithetical to their beliefs. Pretty soon no one has access to any goods or services.
41
I hope that people understand that this is not an academic or theoretical issue. I am a transgender man and hav been denied medical care solely due to my transgender status. I have also been demeaned, lectured to , “outed” by support staff to other patients, gawked at, and general mistreated by medical professionals. While laws alone can’t change behavior, having laws in the books that protect trans people from this type of treatment does send a signal that the expectation is that trans people be treated fairly. On the other hand, these regulations explicitly allow for unequal treatment under the guise of religious beliefs. I and other trans people I know actually will not travel to certain parts of the country (specifically, to states without state level nondiscrimination protections) because we fear we will be denied medical care in the event of an emergency.
58
As a healthcare provider, this will only lead to discrimination and poor healthcare outcomes for the most vulnerable. While I do not agree with the "pro-life" camp, I can understand an objection to abortion regardless of the lack of evidence towards many of the claims by this camp. This "rule" broadens discrimination and will most likely lead to inadequate care to certain people because of intolerant attitudes that exist throughout the country (including medicine, which is very sad). Before this "rule," African Americans and LGBTQ individuals already received suboptimal care versus others as a whole, suggesting pre-existing conscious or unconscious prejudices. It detracts from the Hippocratic oath where we pledge to serve ALL of our fellow individuals. I expect less healthcare being provided to African Americans, the homeless, the LGBTQ community, and really anyone who is not white. I expect some to sit by as these individuals suffer and die because of some poorly-guided "ethical objection" that in effect dehumanizes individuals, directly impinging on their human rights.
32
@John Locke not just the groups you noted, but all women. This would especially affect women seeking oral contraceptives, a type of morning-after pill such as "ella" that's prescription-only, or abortions in rural areas where a woman has no other hospital, clinic, or pharmacy options available.
Imagine a pregnant woman in a rural area suffering a life-threatening emergency who's rushed to the hospital. She requires an abortion to save her health from serious harm or to save her life. But the only doctor able to perform one refuses to, citing this religious and "conscience rights" rule and the woman dies. Does a physician's religious belief supercede Roe v. Wade, the Hippocratic Oath, and a woman's human rights?
Would this new rule likewise allow a health care provider to discriminate against Christians, by citing her religious belief that Christianity is a harmful world religion that's caused more wars, strife and bloodshed throughout human history than any other cause, and it would violate her conscience to save the life of a Christian? See where this sort of rule could lead?
If health care providers aren't willing to perform *all* functions of women's reproductive healthcare, or provide healthcare to LBGTQ persons, they should study for a different degree and choose another career.
This is just a license to discriminate. It's letting people weaponize their religions. The Trump regime demonstrates a clear, sustained hatred of women and minorities; vote Trump out please!
13
Any institution/agency/service that gets some sort or whatever amount of government financing should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious belief, gender, race and other legally protected domains. Period. Of course, this extends to their employees and agents. If you, as an employee, cannot personally follow through on that, get another job, elsewhere.
35
Between religious exemptions for healthcare workers and small businesses wishing to discriminate against others based on religious or moral objections we are at a crossroads. Where we eventually end up we cannot know. Personally I wish people would weigh their potential customers or clients before accepting the job or opening the door to a new business. Whatever happened to not judging others? I believe a business should bring their product or service to market and stay out of the political arena.
25
@Carolyn Cook
Republicans want to revert to the discriminatory days of the 19th century, when white Protestant men told everyone what to do, and rich white Protestant men told working white Protestant men what to tell others to do.
6
Let me get this straight. If I live in a an area where the only other hospital is many miles way, and I have a life threatening medical emergency, I have to hope that the medical provider on whom my life may depend has no religious objections to the required treatment?
Brilliant.
70
@Harry
That's how it is here. All but one hospital were bought by a very conservative religious organization. Before those hospitals were religious but allowed the doctors to actually practice medicine. Now this new corporation came in, bought up the hospitals AND many medical practices, and put severe limits on how staff can treat patients. It's scary. There is one hospital that is not religious and it provides a much higher level of trauma care but it's 45 minutes away from many people so in an emergency people aren't going to make it there. The community rallied against the acquisition but it went through anyways. They are also notorious for illegal billing practices which we've been dealing with personally for almost 2 years now.
36
@JJ I thought that this would only happen in a Red state.
Shocking.
3
As a conservative I disagree with this decision. If you go to work for, say, a drug store you agree to the terms of employment the company states. If that involves selling contraceptives either you sell the contraceptives or you find a different job. Similarly, a Muslim employee could not refuse to sell alcohol to a customer if he/she works in a store that sells beer and wine.
Everyone is free to exercise their own religious beliefs, but that means not taking a job if it requires you to violate those beliefs. Can you imagine a physician hired by Planned Parenthood who then decides he won't perform abortions?
54
@J. Waddell. Your last question is rather silly. Many doctors could work at PP and not perform abortions....could do many other things. I am pro choice...even many pro choice doctors may choose not to perform abortions.
4
@J. Waddell - exactly. There was a brief time in Minnesota where Somali immigrants, who'd gravitated to cab driving, were starting to refuse rides to people at the Minneapolis airport if the fare had packages of alcoholic drinks from the duty-free, or if the driver suspected the person had alcohol on their breath.
That got stopped in a hurry and the hot-head who'd been inciting them was discredited. People providing service to the public put their conscience aside if their conscience is prejudiced against legal requests for the service offered.
Worse than your example, how about a physician who only believes in prayer?
And don't get me started on the whole false concept of corporations somehow having a right to conscientious objection. Somehow it seems that conscience seems centered in the brain of some rich person at the top, imposing their faith on innocent employees.
8
I live in a medium sized town with one hospital--a Catholic one. So, it will be possible for a transgender person to be turned away from the only healthcare facility in the area, if healthcare professionals say they won't treat him or her? And, that won't be malpractice? What if the patient dies?
49
@Ms. Pea Not "possible" - that is EXACTLY what will happen.
7
My transgender wife was in a Catholic hospital for a week. The nurses refused to give her her estrogen medication. No hospital should be allowed to discriminate, period. There are too many small cities and rural areas where there is only a Catholic hospital available.
10
I am a transgender man and I do not travel to certain areas of the country for precisely this reason. And yes, I have actually had the experience of being denied care solely because I am transgender
9
Does this regulation protect ANY religious belief? For example, if someone’s religion demands they protect God’s creation, can he or she refuse to treat someone who works in the oil industry? Just trying to understand if the government is picking which religion or religious beliefs get protection. If so, that violates the Constitution. If not, things are gonna get crazy. Some folks think animal testing is wrong. Can they refuse to administer any drug which has been tested on animals?
29
All pharmaceuticals are tested in animals.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
2
"The rule establishes guidelines for punishing health care institutions with the loss of federal funds if they fail to respect the rights of such workers."
Great. But we're a nation of laws, not a theocracy. So, to balance, there must be the loss of federal funds if they fail to respect the rights of patients to have access to legal procedures. It is more important for the healthcare system to pay attention to the needs of patients. If someone can't, by conscience, provide the services, they should consider other employment. The institutions that have these employees MUST make the services available without inconveniencing the patients.
That's because healthcare facilities are about the patients, not the providers.
29
This is blatantly using religion as an excuse to discriminate against people, and subvert the Constitution and civil rights laws.
Roe v. Wade, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and many other SCOTUS rulings are the law of the land. Why is it OK for one’s religious beliefs to violate Supreme Court decisions?
By allowing denial of funding and services, this rule is effectively the US government imposing Christian beliefs on hospitals and other healthcare providers, and on citizens who choose abortion, contraception, or are LGBTQ.
Under Roe, women have the Constitutional right to privacy; to obtain an abortion. If health care providers can violate their rights under Roe by refusing to provide services—even life-saving services if a rural pregnant woman suffering a life-threatening emergency requiring an abortion to save her life is denied one—where does this slippery slope end?
Given the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, doesn’t this rule also mean we can all choose to violate anyone else’s Constitutional rights (say, by discriminating against Christians) because this new rule lets Christians weaponize *their* religion to violate others’ rights?
If these religious bigots' "conscience rights" accord them the right to discriminate, can people also now claim "conscience rights" to violate ANY LAW? That would be an interesting legal defense.
I certainly hope the sane, blue-state Attorneys General challenge this legalized bigotry in court.
37
No need to dig too deep here guys (even though those of us who work in healthcare are globally disgusted by the implications).
Everyone should know what this is ONLY (and really) about;
Abortion and the Gay/Trans human being.
Permission for so-called ' Christians' to discriminate, to be equally selfish, interfering and nasty, based on their religious lifestyle choice.
45
@Johnbbf exactly, and while also trying to cram those same beliefs down everyone else's throats. I am so over it...
4
So the administration is perfectly happy to insert itself into all manner of personal medical decisions but declines even to listen to or discuss concerns raised re: potential foreign tampering with future US elections. Not past elections, mind you, but those yet to come.
Dear God in heaven.
24
What if, on moral or religious beliefs, a physician refuses to treat our current president if he was to present to a hospital with an acute life-threatening illness? Perhaps that healthcare provider believes it opposes their belief that one should not lie, should not fornicate, should not commit adultery and should be good to strangers?
50
That would be a day to celebrate!
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
6
Just wait until a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, Wiccan, or whatever doctor or nurse refuses to treat a Christian, who then dies as a result. These "religious protection" laws are dangerous.
42
This is not the USA I knew. This is not christian in its basic and essential essence. This is the American Taliban.
77
This is an example of one more thing happening behind the scene while the media continues to fall for the Trump diversions. We all need to pay more attention to the stories below the fold.
22
@Dan Sacco
I agree with you, however, how can we pay more attention to the stories below the fold if the media doesn't publish or highlight these more important stories?
2
Legal, safe and appropriate forms of medical care should be available to all attending a hospital, clinic or office that makes itself available to the general public.
This rule should not pass constitutional muster in any democracy that is worth the name. If Mrs. Murphy is required to give access to her boarding house to all, surely all medical providers must do the same.
To those with qualms of conscience, I suggest they either work for a private organization which does not even pretend to provide the full range of services or they seek another line of work.
Why does this include individuals not actually providing the service like board members and receptionists? This can only be ascribed to nefarious motives such as a board member voting to drop fertility clinic or end of life services at their hospital or clinic. I am also reminded of the clerk in Kentucky who refused to register gay voters.
26
My advice: before choosing a health care provider ask them about their ethical and religious beliefs and how they might affect their delivery of health care. If they provide vague answers find another medical professional asap. As an aside: when it comes to reproductive health ditch the health care provider who doesn't inform or perform. I still can't get my head around the absolute silence that men make women pregnant. Or that vasectomies are covered by insurance? Women, on the other hand will soon lose coverage for birth control and be unable to obtain legal abortions even in instances of rape and health of the woman and fetus.
29
@Ellen F. Dobson
Many members of the clergy in the US recommend service providers of all sorts from the pulpit. Presumably, those members of clergy could be queried along these lines in private as well.
Challenging a provider regarding religious beliefs on first visit or a scheduler before first visit is a very unpleasant event. Certainly, US employers cannot query employment applicants along these lines because of employment discrimination laws.
1
@Ellen F. Dobson - Right, because finding another doctor or hospital is so easy to do.
6
@Ellen F. Dobson Probably good advice to seek another provider but no one should have to go through that step. Any provider available to the general public should provide all services. The onus should be on the provider to assure that staff are adequate and prepared to deliver all legal, safe and appropriate care to everyone seeking it.
5
What about those who refuse to treat on religious grounds? I have personally seen and had to defend against the use of coercion by health care providers because of their religious beliefs. There is no protection for the patient or their families, particularly on end of life issues where the individual has no health care directive and it has happened to us even with a valid health care directive in place. Reading parts of the rule, the anti vaxxers now have even wider latitude. Religious busy bodies will interfere with medical treatment even more. As a patient, we will now start asking every health care provider whether they personally have religious beliefs that would affect my treatment after they get done asking me their standard required questions . Where is the patient's rights in all this? This is exactly what we feared from the Christian right. Religious interference in our lives.
73
Just another example of Republicans limiting your access to healthcare. Question for "Christian" healthcare providers: if He was there in the clinic treating the sick, do you think Jesus would be passing judgement on the patient before treating them?
57
Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions or even using any medication made from blood.
Suppose a patient desperately requires a blood transfusion.
May a health care provider refuse to provide a life saving blood transfusion.
Suppose a patient needs a certain medication [made from blood] in order to survive.
May a health care provider refuse to administer the life saving medication.
17
Any count on how many Jehovah Witnesses are in the medical profession? I doubt it is very many, if any at all. Probably near the number of Christian Scientist cardiac surgeons.
2
@david
Perhaps we should ask for updated universal employment applications. We'll have to list our religions -- or antitheisms -- just so everyone will know what our various gods tell us what we're bound to refuse to do.
Maybe employees should wear religion tags, just in case. And learn introductory speeches to warn potential clients/patients. (I can see the jolly scenes in ambulances and emergency rooms.)
I see I'm going to have to edit and update my suicide plan.
9
Medical providers who have objections to caring for people based on personal beliefs should not be medical providers. Perhaps medical, nursing and other training schools should ensure that such people are not admitted into their programs. Medical providers, by oath, provide care for all, without discrimination or stigma. For a government who wants to keep government out of healthcare, this is quite a stretch!!
83
@margaret ackerman absolutely correct.
8
@margaret ackermanFew enter medical /nursing schools with the ambition to be an abortionist ,involved in euthanasia or to face decisions that test their religious convictions.
Such convictions may place an increased load on others but that health care is threatened is a figment of the imagination. Government protection for those with ethical problems in some areas is necessary in all walks of life including health care. That those with religious objections in a few controversial areas of medical practice should be excluded from those professions is not a tenable argument given their commitment to most areas of care.
1
@Pat C. But it isn’t a figment of the imagination that this will threaten healthcare for some. I am transgender (have identified as such for 15 years) and I have been discriminated against in healthcare settings more times than I can count. These regulations put me at actual risk of harm.
15
No surprise here about Mr. Pence. It was not that long ago that, as governor of Indiana, he signed the law giving individuals the right to discriminate against LGBT people in Indiana because of personal beliefs. The corporate response and economic fallout was strong enough to overturn it. Will that happen now? American Medical Association? Pharmaceutical companies? Where are you? Time to speak up.
64
Will medical providers have to post their "religious objections" to the public so those seeking healthcare can make an informed decision before seeking care from them?
What about emergency situations such as those working as paramedics and in emergency rooms? If an injured or unconscious patient is brought in for care and the care if refused on "religious" grounds, who will treat the patient? What recourse will the patient have if they are unable to advocate for themselves?
69
@June It's difficult to imagine an emergency situation were care is compromised by religious objections.
The legislation is aimed at planned care eg. abortion,assisted suicide/dying etc were religious objections may be relevant. Institutions and practice groups should ensure that patients/clients have access to those with no religious qualms in these areas. Planned care can be managed with no interruption in care while respecting those with religious objections. It's not rocket science.
1
@Pat C... Rocket science is real. Religion is a (ornate) lifestyle choice, people leave and join religions every day.
7
@June
Yes! If health care "professionals" have religious objections, they should have to publically and prominently display what services they will not provide, so people can choose whether to patronize them. Remember, they themselves want everyone to know how staunchly religious they are. And PatC, sometimes an abortion and/or sterilization are necessary emergency procedures. Sometimes vital medication will be denied by a sanctimonious pharmacist (I have witnessed this). It certainly is not rocket science. It is not science at all. It is individuals forcing their rabid religious beliefs on others to the endangerment of those lives.
12
If I refused to do part of my job, I'd get fired.
People who allow their religious (and in this case, read "Christian") beliefs to interfere with their ability to do their jobs should look for another job.
Personally, I hate the idea of a rabid Christian having anything to do with medical care, but I'm Canadian and don't have to worry about this.
96
Why, then, do people whose faith is this 'strong' chose these professions? If you're not going to administer care as needed to a sick patient, then why are you a nurse? Or a nurse's aid? Or a physician assistant? Or physician?
This is akin to a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for some drug or other because his or her conscience won't allow it.
Find another line of work where your conscience won't be offended. Hopefully one that doesn't involve serving the public.
116
I agree. The person who maintains a religious objection should be the one to bear the burden of their belief system, not the person who is the subject of their objection.
27
Does this mean that doctors, nurses and others who sincerely believe that abortions, palliative care only at the end of life, contraception, and other medical procedures are God's plan in particular situations could not be discriminated against by their employers for offering that care or making a referral to someone who would? Isn't that also religious freedom?
32
@Susannna Griefen No.
Medical care is reality based.
Anyone selfish enough can refuse to help another human being in their medical care, now that's freedom! ....but they should be penalized for doing so.
1
@Susannna Griefen It also means that if someone concealed their religious objections during the hiring process, it would not be possible to fire them for not doing the job they were hired to do.
1
To be sure this won't just be about pro-life folks refusing women care. Every homo-trans-phobic healthcare worker can use this law to justify their self-righteous actions. And why not use it against patients of other religions and races as well if your 'god' says so? Bigotry will now be supported by law.
This administration's pandering to the imagined 'War on Christianity' is embarrassing and unnecessary. Honestly, I just wish people would keep their religion to themselves.
By the way, what's the field test for spotting a L.G.B.T. person? Somebody's going to create quite a mess when they discriminate against another because their 'gaydar' is broken.
77
@West of Here: "By the way, what's the field test for spotting a L.G.B.T. person? " As a gay man, having a husband is a big clue.
4
@West of Here
West,
Yes, that is exactly the purpose: an encouragement of depraved mayhem to quell sanctimonious lusts, and revenge for losing in the culture wars.
You make a facially-plausible case that some LGBTQ folk will go unnoticed, but I don’t think that is true: my status, and likely many others, are already listed in health records. We have that information in there to prevent mistakes in medication and drug interactions, to register the status of our bodies for wellness planning, to help with future problem solving and diagnoses, etc.
It is a best practice that can now be used against us.
5
We can add, this HHS proposal acts also to REVERSE an Obama administration proposal in June 2016 (never finalized under the new government) that would have instead STRENGTHENED the rights of gay people in hospitals. http://www.discoveriesinhealthpolicy.com/2019/05/administration-releases-rules-for.html
21
I think that, if you choose a profession which serves people, discrimination based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, color, age, you do not have the right to refuse treatment. To argue discrimination should be allowed overrides my understanding of the Civil Rights protections guaranteed to ‘protected classes.’ Who is next? Real Estate agents that don’t want to work with or for a gay couple? Travel agents who refuse to book a trip for you? Where the heck are we going in this country? Pence calls himself a Christian. Jesus is completely baffled by your behavior, Mr. Pence. It’s love your neighbor, not shun your neighbor.
105
@Lynn
Under the Trump administration and the deplorables that support him/it, women of child bearing age are not a protected class and may be allowed to suffer death or injury on the whim of these 'providers" just like the poor Indian woman who was allowed to die in Ireland before that nation came to its senses and voted to change its anti-abortion, aka anti-women's healtcare, laws.
2
I cannot imagine the horror of moving to a state because of assisted suicide laws, and then being denied services.
22
Why is this photo full of mikitary people? What does that have to do with religion, healthcare, or public policy? The presence of military makes this declaration somewhat ominous.
5
@JB
All White House offices have been heavily staffed with military officers since 1800.
4
What about the patients rights? I am a RN who has worked in critical care. What if you have a nurse or Dr who doesn't abide a DNR order. That patient has expressly stated they do not want resuscitation if their heart stops or they quit breathing. That is their right. Does this law support going against their wishes just because some worker doesn't believe they should be able to make that determination?
120
@Bck Excellent point, thank you. When my grandmother broke her hip she basically died and was ready to do so. The hospital ignored her DNR and the doctor proudly told me that he had "saved" her. She spent the next 5-6 years in a nursing home with dementia where she was miserable. As I age, I look at this incident with more horror knowing that this could happen to me, especially since I am single. Will the doctor/hospital honor my DNR? They certainly didn't honor hers and I was there as her advocate and they ignored me.
55
@Bck
An interesting question. Do doctors have the right to issue a DNR order without discussing such with the individual or family ? Equally ,can they ignore the wishes of an individual known to oppose attempts to prolong life at all costs ? Legal opinion/advice and legislation on these issues is long overdue as is the role of informed consent.
9
Doctors do not "issue DNRs". It's a documentation of the patient's will. Any healthcare "professional" who ignores DNR should be charged with assault and sued for the cost of care.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
16
It's completely reasonable to allow health care workers to freely opt out of participating in an abortion. I refuse to use the term "assisted suicide" to describe humane end of life care, but it's also reasonable to allow anyone to opt out of providing this care. But beyond those two situations where a human life is ended by artificial means, we really have to draw a line.
7
@Todd Fox
An abortion, to me and to women I know, is health care. Assisted suicide, which I might ask for (I'm not yet decided), is also to a lot of folks I know, health care.
Thus, it is not reasonable for a health care worker to opt out of a job he or she was hired to do. Once we draw one line, we'll soon be drawing lots more.
19
@Rea Tarr
Any physician can opt out of providing an abortion - and most do - based on the fact that they are not trained to do so. That's true even of most OB/GYN doctors. (You might ask your OB/GYN at your next appointment.) It's no different than a family physician declining to do brain surgery. You might argue that the doctor should provide a referral, but he/she may not be able to do so, particularly in rural areas where specialists are rare.
There are many doctors who would not find assisted suicide to be "health care." It clearly violates the Hippocratic Oath.
But I would agree that no employee (in health care or otherwise) should be allowed to opt out of a job he/she was hired to do.
1
@J. Waddell
Most Ob/Gyn physicians are able to perform abortions. Ask around. Then, dismissing the classic Hippocratic Oath that called on all the gods and goddesses as witnesses, etc., etc., that isn't in use, the usual modern versions include wording that says, "But it may also be within my power to take a life [...] above all, I must not play at God."
Let's move out of the dark ages; doctors who follow rules set by figments of imagination should not be in the business of caring for people who know hobgoblins, pixies and sprites don't exist.
4
Ah....does this mean that if Donald Trump showed up at my hospital, I could refuse to treat him? (And more restaurants refuse to serve Sarah Sanders?) Seriously, if this goes through, it's unconscionable. Personal choices for one's own healthcare should be entirely separate from what is permitted within the law, although one could certainly choose to work in an area of healthcare where one's morals are not offended.
118
@Shelley Gordon
Excellent point, especially about Sarah Sanders. I am an atheist, and I have a profound moral belief that we should not encourage, support, or cater to liars, cheats, con artists, and defilers of the US Constitution, each of which applies to Sanders, Trump, and virtually every member of Trump's staff, cabinet, and family. Most Republican members of Congress, too. Thus, to refuse to serve such people in any way that would provide them with comfort and ease (unless and until they have repented their immorality) would constitute my own equivalent of some religious person's claim that god or scripture required that s/he abstain from some act.
So, let's get going on implementing this response, if the Trump crime family continues to pursue its favor-the-religious policies at the expense of the rest of us.
8