- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Bobby Jindal
- |
Bush's Parting Shot Undermines Health Care
Read More:
Abortion, Birth Control, Cecile Richards, Choice, Health Care, Hhs, Midnight Regulation, Planned Parenthood, President Bush,
Politics News
Very little about the Bush administration could surprise me anymore, but I was completely disheartened when -- despite the written opposition from more than 200,000 Americans, 150 members of Congress, a bipartisan coalition of governors and attorneys general, the American Medical Association, and women's health organizations like Planned Parenthood -- the Department of Health and Human Services issued a last minute regulation that will undermine health care access at nearly 600,000 pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals across the country.
This sort of "take the drapes on your way out" approach is the final chapter of an administration that has prized political ideology over health care for their entire eight years -- and the rule issued yesterday, with little more than 30 days left in office, is the ultimate holiday gift to the extreme right.
Under this new rule, doctors and health care workers of all kinds can deny patients vital health care information and services, without the patient even knowing. No patient is exempt from the reach of this rule: sexual assault victims could be denied information about emergency contraception that could prevent unintended pregnancy, moms hoping to time their pregnancies can be denied contraception at their local pharmacy, young adults hoping to be tested for sexually transmitted infections could be denied treatment by health care employees who oppose premarital sex.
In short, this rule is likely to create total chaos in an already stressed health care system, and for low-income women and families, this rule may spell the end of the few available health care options. Essentially, any patient that utilizes health care at a provider that receives any federal funds will be subject to the luck of the draw in terms of what kinds of reproductive health care they are offered. This might seem far-fetched, until you realize that groups like Pharmacists for Life have campaigned nationally to have pharmacies refuse to provide women birth control prescribed by their physician.
If you had any doubt that this rule is about politics, not health care, just watch the high-fives among the far right. "This is a huge victory for religious freedom and the First Amendment," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
The bottom line in health care has always been that patients' health comes first; this regulation turns that basic tenet on its head. In fact, they failed to address the basic questions of patients' rights lodged by hundreds of thousands of Americans during that period.
For months, Planned Parenthood has spoken out against the proposed regulation. When a draft version of the rule was leaked last summer, we were the first out of the gate to point out the damage this regulation could do to women's health care. And, in the days and weeks to come, we will work with the new administration and Congress to overturn this disastrous rule. Our goal has always been to expand -- not limit -- patients' access to full health care information and services. If you want to help, please sign our petition.
And count your blessings that this administration is almost finished.
Cross-posted on RH Reality Check.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
9TN%2FnJguV8goRhnArsh%2FJTikI1oryZKwiaOQv7VNPe%2BMaHGSL%2BvH0DlAZ%2BNu7eiZE0azAdkFvHHhRtw7oQZbB%2F2rqF2VDIpR
VlCCYYaz9CQW%2BNyASOJp1XH3ViqR0wIkM%2FoMj1qRHSgjQ6mPu7GHaA%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 5
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The bright side is that it's so stupid that the courts may find it unenforceable, if they can make any sense of it at all. Anyone who isn't a doctor making a medical decision is illegally practising medicine and the penalties can be nasty.
Does this mean that if a patient comes into an Emergency Room, and the patient is wearing a crucifix around his or her neck, and the Emergency Room staff disapproves of Christianity, that the Emergency Room staff can take their own good time in giving this patient medical treatment? Absolutely yes.
Or maybe a Muslim head scarf? Much more likely to be denied care...
It also means that a rape victim might not get treatment
or counseling.
I believe this also signifies that Heath Care mediators employed by Health Care Insurance providers and HMO's can make "decisions of conscience" when providing payment and procedure approval or disapproval decisions for coverage of medical procedures.
So the clerical person at the Insurance company can override the medical decision of the doctor because the clerical person find's the medical decision objectionable as a matter of "conscience".
Until these odious policies get replaced, there is one bright aspect...
Refusing treatment and medication will have consequences to those who participate, if the doctor refuses then people will go to another doctor. If a pharmacy doesn't want to give birth control, one down the street will be more than happy to. Let them suffer the consequences. Right now is the worst time for anyone to be losing customers and patients.
It might be a good time for an Angie's list type of site that can let people know what doctors and pharmacies won't treat patients for these reasons. A national blacklist.
What about the people who don't have other doctors or pharmacies to go to?
word. Not everyone lives in a large city or has multiple resources available.. and in an emergency, you're being sent to the emergency room of the nearest hospital with room. No time to be making a choice.
In my town, there is no alternative place to go, for treatments that are unavailable at the hospital. Not only that, but all tests go to one lab -- if technicians in that lab object to processing the tests (say, HIV tests), then there is no alternative short of moving to California, or some other state less friendly to the Reich than Alaska is.
And a person such as myself, with no insurance, might
have fewer options on doctors and hospitals.
PE Obama is not only going to have to deal with our desperate economic situation and bringing the war to an end but with all of these final Bush "gifts." This is just the beginning. There will be many more before January 20 finally arrives.
If a doctor firmly believes in abortion in order to correct any possible birth defect, would he be justified in terminating a pregnancy against a woman's wishes? If he believes he is morally correct in keeping the woman from the pain of a deformed child, can he be held liable? Just wondering. If women can't get what they need to prevent pregnancy, can a practitioner terminate one he believes will be a detriment to the woman and society. It's not that far fetched.
"If a doctor firmly believes in abortion in order to correct any possible birth defect, would he be justified in terminating a pregnancy against a woman's wishes? If he believes he is morally correct in keeping the woman from the pain of a deformed child, can he be held liable? Just wondering. If women can't get what they need to prevent pregnancy, can a practitioner terminate one he believes will be a detriment to the woman and society?"
That's not the worry, and you know it. Clever use of sophistry, BTW.
But it is a good example of how far this can be taken.
I have no problem with someone who wants to run an explicitly religion-based pharmacy, if that bias is provided up-front. However, if you work for a company that purports to serve everyone, that means respecting the values of the people you serve, not imposing your own values on others.
Wiki says it was John Stuart Mill who wrote, "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins." In essence, this rule would extend the rights of health-care workers beyond their own fists and into many other people's faces.
People do not have to be upfront about their
personal beliefs, either with patients or the
doctors and clinics they work for.
But if their personal beliefs affect whether or not they will provide the service that is being requested, they damn well ought to have to be upfront.
A healthcare provider is supposed to be providing healthcare. Not some healthcare, not just the parts they personally agree with. If that provider isn't willing to provide that care without imposing a particular moral viewpoint, then they should be required to make sure that possible patients know that right up front.
IMO, any person going into the healthcare field (doctor, surgeon, pharmacist, medical insurance, etc.) should be REQUIRED to provide any and all healthcare services to any human being. Regardless of what they personally believe.
They are going into a service to provide HEALTH care to an individual. No one has a right to dictate to me what healthcare I should receive due to their own moral feelings. That goes in direct conflict with MY moral feelings and I'm the one who is paying THEM. They can get out of the healthCARE field now if they don't like it.
The problem isn't so much that I should go to another healthcare provider (because *I* personally do) the problem comes when these people who are to provide healthcare are the only sources available to a group of people or a population.
Get your morality out of my healthcare.
Too late. Bush is running the show on this one.
All of the women in my family have problems with Ovarian cysts. When these burst - it's bad news.
Therefore, almost every woman in my extended family is on some form of birth control. We don't take it because it gives us the ability to sleep with anyone and everyone that we want and not get pregnant.
We take it because it reduces the size of existing and helps prevent the growth of future ovarian cysts.
No doctor or pharmacist should have the right to deny me of a medicine that helps me live day to day without the pain of cysts or the fear of something bursting inside of me because they have a problem with the fact that some people use it as a means of contraception.
Then find a Dr. that is willing to treat you-all... don't force people to violate their values for Political Correctness...
No, those people who don't want to treat other people can go and find another profession.
if your beliefs prevent you from doing your job correctly, you have the first amendment right to quit and get a different job, not to change the job description to suit your own politics.
If your "values" prevent you from doing your job, find another job that is more in line with your values.
You are part of the problem. Please 'Wake-up'.
Do not force your idea of moral correctness on me.
I feel strongly that medical personal should be afforded respect for moral beliefs. Nobody should be forced to perform procedures they find morally wrong. Personally, I believe the percentage who will really use this right will be very small. Most will find it in their heart to rise above and serve in a somewhat more selfless manner.
At the same time, each patient should be protected by being able to make appropriate personal choices and not be limited by anothers morality. Full disclosure (especially on the phone before money or time has been spent) and access to resources that could provide the services should be required by law. Public health concerns should also be prioritised. For example nurses shoud not be allowed to work in schools if they are morally against practices or services that would promote all sexual health options and the oportunity for students to engage in open discourse.
Trying to find a compromises that can respect all the peoples rights IMO is preferable than politicizing issues and protecting some people's rights at the expense of others.
Trying to find ways to avoid hostility might promote a political atmosphere in which to address crucial issues such as healthcare, education, security, spending, resources, quality public services, etc can be worked on to the greater benefit of all. Thats what I think anyway.
Why? Why should pharmacists have any say about distribution of products that science and medicine has discovered cures our ills? Moral beliefs are transient, death is not. 200 years ago doctors believed it was morally correct to bleed patients to get the evil spirits out. We used to lock up people with mental problems and use electric shock to return them to sanity. Christianity fought tooth and nail against medical science until medicine proved it could cure or prevent cholera, small pox, staff infections, polio, etc. Christianity gave up this position only when a lot of people started looking somewhere else for solutions instead of trusting in blind faith. Up until a few years ago if you could prevent certain diseases and were female there was a good chance of being burned as a witch. So keep your morality and let me have my penicillin and birth control, and if you don't like it find another profession.
A colonial-era American minister (I'm sorry, but I can't recall his name) objected to the use of a recently-discovered technique of smallpox inoculation (pre-dating Jenner's method) because it interfered with a person's divinely-ordained destiny to die of disease. We've made sooooooooooooo much progress since then.
People are still held against their will due to perceived psychiatric maladies. Some of those people will receive ECT, 'electroconvulsive therapy', or "shock treatment". In fact it can bring some patients out of deep depression with few and minor perceived side effects. Plus ca change.....
Since the time of Hippocrates, the rules among physicians has been, "The needs of the patient comes first." Now the rule has been changed to "The morality of the physician comes first."
If the physician's conscience is bothered by being asked to perform an abortion, he has two choices: He can go to work at a different place, or he can quit medicine altogether. There is no need for Bush's third option: Cherry-picking.
Bushie made bad law; once again, the man with no conscience has pandered to the right-wing crazies. (By legalizing "conscience," ironically.)
(Not to mention: For lawyers who specialize in defending doctors sued for malpractice, Bushie's little stunt is a giant Christmas present, complete with ribbon and bow.)
"Vital healthcare information and services" is a euphemism for abortion. Doctors and healthcare providers SHOULD be able to opt out of this proceedure if they believe life begins at conception and performing it would be infanticide. Just like conscientious objectors can opt out of battlefield duty. It's not politics but religious beliefs and ethics.
That's extremely shortsighted of you. No patient should be withheld from information pertaining to their health. It is a right that allows for the best well being of the patient. Patients and doctors should be open with each other in all instances.
I believe that ppl can be allowed to not do what they dont want to do...WITHIN LIMITS. When someone's healthcare is on the line, doctors are required to provide as much information as possible. And if they really dont want to do the procedure themselves, then they are obligated to tell the patient where they can go.
As far as I know, doctors already have a right not to perform abortions. No doctor is forced to do so, no healthcare providers are forced to do so. They can refuse on moral or religious grounds.
But we're not talking about a doctor's right to not perform a specific procedure. We're talking about also a healthcare provider being able to not even mention that an option exists, and being under no obligation to tell the patient that they are not being given complete information.
It's no different than if you were to be diagnosed with lung cancer, and your doctor believes that it's a sin to provide chemotherapy. Not only could that doctor refuse to give you chemotherapy, he could decide not to even mention chemotherapy to you, could refuse to give you a referral to someone that offers chemotherapy, and if you asked about it, he could basically lie to you and tell you it's not available.
Sound like a good deal to you?
Today, unlike years past, most pharmacists are nothing more than pill counters, cash register attendants and filing clerks. I'd prefer to let my doctor -- the guy with the 12 years in school -- make the decisions about my healthcare thank you you very much.
If the pill counter doesn't like it, they should find a different job.
Pete - having worked in pharmacy for 10+ years, you are sadly mistaken about a pharmacist's role in patient healthcare. Many patients look to their RPh for advice they can't get a Dr. to bother with. RPh's catch dr's mistakes on a daily basis. We frequently identify issues caused by patients seeing multiple dr's who are unaware of other, ongoing treatments. Most RPh's are pragmatic enough to realize that they are acting as healers of sorts, not spritual advisers.
Pharmacists are very aware of their limitations. Is your doctor?
signed - the pill counter
Most people have little or no contact with a RPh. That person may be behind a wall or in another room filling prescriptions. The person handing the customer their bag and taking their money may have a high school diploma. If you are lucky, a pharmacy tech may be available to answer a question, but that's only if you are lucky.
OK, Pete is inaccurate about the role of pharmacists, but he's still got a point.
It's one thing for a pharmacist to say, "Hey, if you take this medication with that medication, it's going to cause a drug interaction that could potentially be dangerous to you." It's another thing entirely for someone to say, "Hey, I don't believe anyone should ever take this drug because it could potentially have a result that's contrary to my personal beliefs."
The pragmatists are not the problem, and never have been. I do, however, have a problem with enabling the spiritual advisor to take control over my health care.
Actually, if you want some real info on a medication...ask a pharmacist...I always ask...and I have found you can just call one willy nilly from the phone book and they are always more than happy to anwer all of your questions!
And yes, I am in the health field :)
Does anyone know if pharmacists also take the hippocratic (sp?) oath?
No, pharmacists do not take the hippocratic oath. Because they do not actually perform procedures or administer drugs, there is very little that the hippocratic oath would affect in their duties.
By the same token, I don't think nurses take the oath either.
People need to start paying more attention to the fact that this goes beyond abortion and contraception. The language is so vague that anyone can refus to do just about anything and there will be no repurcusions. A homophobic EMT could refuse to help the victim of a gay bashing. A mormon doctor could refuse to treat native americans, a jehova's witness nurse could refuse to provide a blood transfusion, an evangelical pharmacist could refuse to provide antiretrovirals. Where does it end? How many people are going to have to die before people realise how far this goes?
Those are all very insightful examples of specific examples of "issues of conscience" decisions that could cause a significant breakdown in the health delivery system in the country.
Does it also signify that Heath Care mediators employed by Health care insurance providers can make "decisions of conscience" when providing payment approval or disapproval decisions for coverage of medical procedures?
Theoretically it could, and in any of these cases, there would be no repercusions, because they were "following their conscience."
To me, this and many of the policies pushed through by the Bush Administration are ultimate ironies. After it was clear there were no wmd in Iraq, the new ‘reason’ for going to war was to ‘liberate the Iraqi people.” In citing this new reason, the example often cited was the plight of the Iraqi woman. Total B.S.
The U.S. can’t protect our own women. Daily countless women are victims of violent crime at the hands of strangers, fathers, boyfriends, husbands and ex-husbands. It has even come to light that honor killings are taking place in the United States, in some cases the culprits have been siblings.
Now, we have soldiers fighting and dying to liberate the Iraqi people, while our own rights are being stripped away right here in the U.S.! The Patriot Act is just a flipping shame! Now this crap. So, we sit idly by and watch our soldiers die, our military become weakened, our economy weaken, our industries exported and now more rights granted to us in the constitution just ignored – while supposedly making in Iraq a society where democracy reigns. Hell, at the rate we are going, we won’t have democracy here nor there. Or even worse, what if we do bring democracy to Iraq, and end up relinquishing it here? That’s the ultimate irony.
We have lost a lot of our rights over the last 8
years, and like another poster said, it ain't over
yet.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
