An Innocuous Sounding Rule

Some people want to give President Bush an “attaboy” for increasing the budget for medical clinics in underserved areas. Ok, fine. 

There is a new rule that sounds innocuous, but may result in you or someone you love being unable to get needed medical care. The rule sounds like a good thing on its surface: people who work in medical facilities don’t have to do things that they find morally reprehensible, and they can’t be punished for refusing.

The reality is that under this rule, absolutely anybody who works in a hospital, clinic, doctor’s office, or pharmacy can effectively prevent somebody from getting some kinds of care at all. Furthermore, they don’t even have to tell you about treatment options or other providers who are willing to help you. 

Of course, the first and obvious target is abortion. It’s an emotionally charged issue. This rule doesn’t just say that doctors don’t have to do them and nurses don’t have to assist. It means that receptionists don’t have to schedule you, and the janitorial staff doesn’t have to make sure the room is clean. 

The next obvious target is contraceptives, both traditional and emergency. Even sterilization. Never you mind that the Supreme Court said we could have The Pill all the way back in the 60s, never mind that hormonally based contraceptives have other legitimate medical uses, never mind that there are times when a hysterectomy is a life-saving intervention. Under this rule — assuming you have a doctor who has given you a prescription — you can only get hormonal contraceptives if the pharmacist and the cashier both think it’s acceptable. 

Finally, and more frightening, “its scope could be much wider, including those opposed to assisted suicide, sex-change operations or even vaccinations….”  That’s from the Salt Lake Tribune, not some Ultra-Liberal Blue State Latte Sipping Sushi Eating Volvo Driving rag. When Salt Lake is worried about this stuff, it’s worth worrying about. Can the clinic decide not to see someone who is gay? How about a woman wearing a headscarf?

I’m going to explain this for what I hope is one last time. Try to keep up.

If someone is disciplined or fired for not doing what their job requires, none of us need feel sorry for them. We are not talking about some new breakthrough drug or proceedure with murky ethical implications.  We are talking about medications and medical interventions that have been with us for decades. These people of “conscience” knew what was involved when they took the job. If they don’t like it, they need to find employment elsewhere. To do less is to say their morals aren’t worth inconveniencing themselves, only others. 

If a vegetarian gets a job in a steakhouse, she knows her job involves serving meat. Hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices, and pharmacies exist for the purpose of helping people who need medical assistance. The people who work in these facilites need to provide it.

Retro-Posts, The Economy Is Same As It Ever Was edition: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. As a Bonus, Advice for Holiday Programs and New Bloggers. 

In Closing: ending forced marriage is harder than Making A Law; Top 10 New Organisms of the Year; The Real Von Trapps; Lowest Mortgage Rates in 37 years… if you can qualify; Japanese teachers are against the use of English… in English class!; why our system of paying for health care sucks; a Starry Night in Death Valley; How to Tell if Someone is a Bigot; and Jobless Claims hit yet another high (check out the chart comparing it to the S&P 500), but remember that those figures are seasonally adjusted.  Really, a half million people didn’t file for unemployment for the first time. Nope. It’s more like 715,496. Department of Labor puts up new figures there each week (wouldn’t want anybody knowing about old data, would they?), so check it out while you can.