PDA

View Full Version : Bush Broadens Rule on Refusal of Health Services for Moral Reasons




speech
12-19-2008, 07:56 PM
An 11th-hour ruling from the Bush administration gives health care workers, hospitals, and insurers more leeway to refuse health services for moral or religious reasons.

The rule, issued today, becomes effective in 30 days. Its main provisions widen the number of health workers and institutions that may refuse, based on "sincere religious belief or moral conviction," to provide care or referrals to patients.

"This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience," says Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in a statement.

Previous rules allow health care workers to refuse to provide abortion or sterilization services to which they are morally opposed. The new rulings give individuals and institutions much greater leeway in refusing to provide services to which they are morally opposed.

The ruling, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, covers an estimated 571,947 "entities" including doctors' offices, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, medical and nursing schools, diagnostic labs, nursing homes, and state governments.

Each of these entities is required to certify in writing that they will comply with the ruling. Failure to comply may be punished with loss of federal funding.

A wide number of medical groups strongly oppose the new ruling. These groups include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 27 state medical associations.

The focus of the new ruling is on protecting health care workers and institutions that oppose abortion and a broad interpretation of "sterilization."
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=4591.0;topicseen

hypnagogue
12-19-2008, 09:52 PM
The problem with this rule is that it prevents employers from firing individuals who refuse to perform the procedures that the employee objects to. I'm all for allowing organizations to choose what procedures they're willing to offer, but it's quite another to force an employer to pay someone who refuses to do the job they're asked to perform.

The fact that the federal government of course has no jurisdiction or authority over such a matter is reflected in the fact that the only penalty is a loss of federal funds. Another case example of tax money being held ransom by the federal government to force others to obey their wishes.

Monolithic
12-19-2008, 10:31 PM
god i hate this man so much

if these people refuse to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB because of "moral reasons", then fire them, get rid of them, they don't deserve their job if they're not going to do it

Isaac Bickerstaff
12-20-2008, 05:15 AM
More distraction. The question should be, "does government/government money have any place in health care?" but instead, the administration is getting the fools to argue about an emotional issue (again).

jkr
12-20-2008, 11:13 AM
+1