An Invaluable and Indispensable Nurse: Some want to take away her right to follow her conscience.
Credit: Produnis | ©Wikimedia Commons
Should Health Care Workers Have a Right to Refuse Treatment Based on Conscience?
In December of 2008, the Bush administration passed a "right of conscience" ruling that permits medical professionals to refuse treatment based on moral or religious grounds.
It appears one of the primary issues regarding this is "women's health" and abortion, but federal law has specified for more than thirty years doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortive procedures. There are other considerations that could become factors, such as artificial insemination, birth control and more.
The signing of this rule has resulted in the shock and horror of liberals everywhere, many of whom don't believe in focusing on morals, religious concerns or matters of right and wrong. They apparently believe people should not have a right to listen to their conscience. Do they also believe in slave labor, where people must do as they're told regardless of their principles or any moral convictions at all?
The liberals have come out in force, presenting all sorts of horror stories about why the freedom of people to act according to their conscience would be bad and should be prevented by law. Their arguments, however, are without merit and are mostly based on the fear that remedies on demand for the results of their dysfunctional lifestyles will be lost.
Wikipedia informs us regarding the Nuremberg war crime trials: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Are the people who are opposed to right of conscience laws also opposed to moral choices being made possible to people? The Nuremburg ruling was a direct way of indicating a person's conscience or moral awareness should in some circumstances supersede orders from those in charge. Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but aren't most progressives in favor of freedom of choice (or does this only apply to themselves)? Aren't they also opposed to slavery?
It appears one of the primary issues regarding this is "women's health" and abortion, but federal law has specified for more than thirty years doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortive procedures. There are other considerations that could become factors, such as artificial insemination, birth control and more.
The signing of this rule has resulted in the shock and horror of liberals everywhere, many of whom don't believe in focusing on morals, religious concerns or matters of right and wrong. They apparently believe people should not have a right to listen to their conscience. Do they also believe in slave labor, where people must do as they're told regardless of their principles or any moral convictions at all?
The liberals have come out in force, presenting all sorts of horror stories about why the freedom of people to act according to their conscience would be bad and should be prevented by law. Their arguments, however, are without merit and are mostly based on the fear that remedies on demand for the results of their dysfunctional lifestyles will be lost.
Wikipedia informs us regarding the Nuremberg war crime trials: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Are the people who are opposed to right of conscience laws also opposed to moral choices being made possible to people? The Nuremburg ruling was a direct way of indicating a person's conscience or moral awareness should in some circumstances supersede orders from those in charge. Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but aren't most progressives in favor of freedom of choice (or does this only apply to themselves)? Aren't they also opposed to slavery?
- The right of conscience rule has resulted in the shock and horror of liberals everywhere.
- Horror stories have been presented about why people shouldn't be allowed to follow their conscience.
- The Nuremburg trials emphasized the duty of people to follow their conscience over orders.
Comments
Doctor Jake: I believe that ER (emergency)circumstances and elective circumstances differ, and accountability for immediate life saving or health preserving procedures warrant a separate consideration. Here's another thought: With all due respect, the vast majority of doctors in non-ER situations refuse to treat people (even with) life threatening conditions if they can't pay, which in my opinion is a violation of ethics. Pondering on this, I believe one of the key factors is going to be "life threatening conditions," whether in the ER or not. Assisting with a drive-through abortion, for example, is different than helping someone who is in immediate danger from...whatever. That is my short answer, and although there's not enough room in the comment block to go into more depth, this is certainly enough to stimulate a lot of thought. Thanks for commenting.
Jake
(Guest)
(Guest)
01/07/2009
The wording in the law is WAY too vague. I could as a doctor refuse to test or treat people with STDs, gay people, and on those same grounds I could let a christian mother to die in the ER because I may morally object to my suspicions that she eats pork ... or a rape or domestic abuse victim because I don't approve of sex outside of marriage.
Comments 1 - 2 (of 2)
|
|