Tuesday, March 03, 2009

More on the End of Tolerance . . .

Tomorrow is a travel day, and with it begins a whirlwind schedule. So I'm posting again today, not knowing when I might be able to do so for the next while.

This from David Stevens of the Christian Medical Association, on the news that the Obama administration is moving to rescind a regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in healthcare:
The move to rescind the healthcare provider conscience regulation imperils women's healthcare access, threatens healthcare professionals' freedom to practice medicine according to ethical standards, and exposes the myth of moderation in Obama's abortion policy.

The Obama administration claims, without offering a shred of statistical evidence, that the regulation has 'created confusion' and will somehow hinder access to healthcare. What can be clearer than not using federal funds to force healthcare professionals to violate longstanding principles of medical ethics like the Hippocratic Oath, which guided medicine for over two millennia? The real threat to healthcare access is driving out every healthcare professional who conscientiously practices medicine according to life-affirming ethical standards.
Perhaps those who, despite glaring evidence to the contrary, were sanguine about Mr. Obama's reputed moderation on the abortion issue might want to come forward to tell us how they assess these developments.

The whole CMA statement is here.


Kevin said...

I'll come forward to defend this as moderate.
During the last eight years thi cover of conscience was used to deny women contraception, both the Pill and Plan B. If a woman requests a legal drug with a prescription there is no ethical leg for a pharmacist to stand on to deny that drug.

Two examples:



Obama is being moderate if you wish to use that term. Pharmacists should properly dispense the drugs prescribed without commentary, evasion or obfuscation. To allow anything else would wreak havoc with peoples lives. I work with a woman who took birth control pills to stabilize her cycle. She was denied them at one pharmacy for these moralistic reasons.
She has money. She has the capability to find another pharmacy and the time to go and get all of that done. For a harried and busy mother who only has 15 minutes to pick up the necessary prescriptions, this is an unreasonable impediment.
I'm afraid that if we are to live in a secular society where we are allowed to live our lives as we see fit, some will have to behave in a neutral fashion regardless of their personal feelings. Or perhaps they have to find another line of work.
Doctors and pharmacists serve the public. That service should not be dependent upon a morality test.
That is a moderate position.
Ad Astra Per Aspera,

Dan Florio said...

I can understand your argument that a pharmacist should not preach from behind the counter, Kevin, and largely agree with it. But surely these examples do not justify forcing a doctor to commit an act that he or she is convinced is murderous. Difficulty in procuring medicine is one thing, abortion is another.