Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NEJM editorial re: conscience clauses

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
sldavis Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 12:37 PM
Original message
NEJM editorial re: conscience clauses
There is an editorial in this week's New England Journal of Medicine that I think does a pretty good job of summarizing the stance of health care professions in the debate over conscience clauses and contraception. The full-text is free on the NEJM web site, and I encourage anyone interested to read it. There is also an audio file of an interview with the author, which I admit I haven't listened to yet. This is becoming a big issue in medicine and pharmacy... we don't want to deny our colleagues their right to a "conscience," but more importantly we can't let their personal views interfere with providing medical care to our patients. If there is a law being introduced in your state to protect doctors and pharmacists when refusing to provide contraception, please contact your legislators to make sure there is also a clause to protect patients ensuring appropriate referral is always offered.
-SLD



The Celestial Fire of Conscience — Refusing to Deliver Medical Care
R. Alta Charo, J.D. NEJM 352(24):2471-3, June 16, 2005

...
Largely as artifacts of the abortion wars, at least 45 states have "conscience clauses" on their books — laws that balance a physician's conscientious objection to performing an abortion with the profession's obligation to afford all patients nondiscriminatory access to services. In most cases, the provision of a referral satisfies one's professional obligations. But in recent years, with the abortion debate increasingly at the center of wider discussions about euthanasia, assisted suicide, reproductive technology, and embryonic stem-cell research, nurses and pharmacists have begun demanding not only the same right of refusal, but also — because even a referral, in their view, makes one complicit in the objectionable act — a much broader freedom to avoid facilitating a patient's choices.
...
Accepting a collective obligation does not mean that all members of the profession are forced to violate their own consciences. It does, however, necessitate ensuring that a genuine system for counseling and referring patients is in place, so that every patient can act according to his or her own conscience just as readily as the professional can. This goal is not simple to achieve, but it does represent the best effort to accommodate everyone and is the approach taken by virtually all the major medical, nursing, and pharmacy societies. It is also the approach taken by the governor of Illinois, who is imposing an obligation on pharmacies, rather than on individual pharmacists, to ensure access to services for all patients.
------------------

more...

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/24/2471
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC