[Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 4 18:48:26 PST 2009
Why don't you document where people have been forced to do what you describe below:
"If a health
care provider signs up to be a pediatrician at a children's hospital he is not
immediately obligated to be the facilities abortionist. If you visit a doctor
for a flu shot he does not have to acquiesce to your demand to have your
pregnancy terminated."
Sunil
From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:09:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to Rescind Conscience Rule
"First, health care is a right."
Wrong. Access to health care is a
right.
"If you are a health care provider, in order to get your license or
certification of any kind, you are sworn to do certain things. If you don't want
to do those things, you should not sign the agreement to get the license and/or
medical certificate."
I would be quite surprised if you could document
that statement. Please provide us with a copy of this mythical agreement of
which you speak. I suppose I could be wrong (not bloody likely) but
I'm quite sure that a person can obtain their M.D. and never practice any
kind of medicine a day in their life. Any "agreement" is between the physician
and his employer, be that the patient or the facility he works for. If a health
care provider signs up to be a pediatrician at a children's hospital he is not
immediately obligated to be the facilities abortionist. If you visit a doctor
for a flu shot he does not have to acquiesce to your demand to have your
pregnancy terminated.
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
Donovan Arnold
To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:25
PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Obama to
Rescind Conscience Rule
Garrett,
You make some really good points in terms
of market capitalism and how it should work, and for the most part does
work. However, there are some big differences that must be made between
market capitalism and that of health care.
First, health care is
a right. And something being a right means that it must be provided, if
not by a government entity, then by a private entity under contract with
the government.
If you are a health care provider, in order to
get your license or certification of any kind, you are sworn to do
certain things. If you don't want to do those things, you should not
sign the agreement to get the license and/or medical certificate.
That is when the "choice" is made.
The choice does not come when
someone drops in front of me and I decide I don't want to do CPR and let
my employer find another health care provider. Nope, the choice was
already made by me when I got my CNA, got my CPR card, got my First Aid
card, became med certified, I signed a contract with my employer and the
State of Idaho agreeing to provide services in exchange for a job and my
certifications and licenses.
Your license is an agreement with
the state of Idaho to preform tasks expected of that license, in a state
sanctioned manner, by the patient or person in need of your services.
If is a violation of that person's rights, for me, as a CNA, to
not provide care to someone because of this reason or that. If I have a
problem with providing care, I could not agree to get my license. There
are medications I do not always agree with giving people, that I must
give. There are services I provide people, I do not think they should
get. But it is not my right to decide what they need or get based on my
social/religious/political beliefs. It is my obligation to do what the
nurse tells me to do within the scope of my job, training, and licenses,
and certifications, that is all. If I commit a sin in the performance of
my duties of helping someone, I know a guy named Jesus who I can talk to
about forgiveness. If it is something so grave I cannot morally justify
it, I need to change jobs.
I am appalled that a pharmacist has
the right to counter a doctor's order and stop care provided to a
patient based on their political/social/religious beliefs. That should
not happen.
The pharmacist doesn't know everything the doctor
knows. And their inaction could cost a life, or permanent damage to
someone. Same with nurse, PA, CNA, LPN, MA, or other medical
professionals.
There are lots of jobs in the medical field that
do not involve birth control or abortions a person can pursue if this is
a problem for them.
Best
Regards,
Donovan
--- On Wed, 3/4/09,
Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
wrote:
From:
Garrett Clevenger
<garrettmc at verizon.net>
Subject: [Vision2020] Obama to
Rescind Conscience Rule
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date:
Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 11:49 AM
Sandra writes:
"in order to maintain adequate standards of care, more employees would be
required at all times to pick up the slack of those refusing to do all aspects
of the jobs they were hired to do."
It makes sense that in order to serve patients with care they expect, if some
care-givers refuse to help, others would need to step in. Isn't it the
responsibility of the employer, though, to insure that it's employees do
their job? If I'm starting to understand the conscience rule correctly,
those employees would have job
security even if they disobey their boss's
orders. It is ironic that this essentially is government interference with a
private enterprise in its ability to function as needed, considering it's
the opposite of conservatives' normal stance of not regulating businesses.
Should a person expect to get an abortion from any health care provider, or are
there select clinics where such procedures can be had? Who makes the call of
whether a health care provider performs controversial procedures or not? I
suppose it's the director of clinics who would decide if they perform them,
not necessarily the doctors, nurses or other staff, and that some directors
would choose to offer them, some would not.
Obviously you can't get an abortion at a dermatologist's office. Where,
then, can one expect to have that done? If there are specific places, then
obviously those procedures should be performed without hassle, and if
staff
there consciously object to helping with such a procedure, then they are not
doing their job, and they should be let go. It's a private business, after
all, and the free market should dictate its success in the long run.
But if staff in a place where its not part of their mission to perform
abortions is expected to take part in one anyway but refuses and then is let go,
that doesn't seem right, and they should have recourse for objecting based
on moral reasons. Whether they need a conscience rule to ensure that right, I
don't know.
Do pharmacies carry every available drug, or do they only have select drugs
available? Are they obligated to sell any drug someone has a prescription for?
If not, then I agree they should not be forced to carry drugs they don't
want to sell. Whether they need a conscience rule to ensure that right, I
don't know.
It does seem ridiculous that the rule applies to
contraceptives.
The rule will only affect institutions that receive federal money. If they
don't comply, the punishment is no more federal money. I suppose the
thinking is that since tax-dollars are used, it could be construed that the feds
endorse abortions, and hence are mandating clinics that receive fed money are
required to ensure their employees do things they may not want to do, thus the
conscience rule is a way to protect those employees religious rights from
government intrusion.
The conscience rule could be a way for anti-choice foes to infiltrate clinics
and stop abortions, which would make them activist health-care providers,
essentially going against the duties of these providers to provide health care
as needed.
Perhaps it would be best for employees to sign a waiver, acknowledging they
understand abortions are performed at those clinics, and that they are willing
to help as needed.
Those that don't sign aren't hired.
In essence, it's possible that the conscience rule (I still haven't
read it, shame on me, but at 127 pages its toooo long (another reason not to
trust it!), see link below) is illegal if it essentially is a rule regarding the
establishment of religion, ie, preventing businesses from firing people because
of a special status given to employees who claim religious freedom. It's
possibly a law establishing religion as a trump over a business's right to
operate as needed, and to terminate employees who don't do their job.
Government does not need to pass laws to protect people's religious
freedom. The Constitution already protects that, but it doesn't mean you are
entitled to get paid for standing up for your religious beliefs.
Yes, I suppose I may be a flip-flip-flopper on this one...
Official
text:
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=157701135748+2+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
gclev
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List
services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090304/32c61f1f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list