Medical Workers, Religion, and Treatment

by Pris Sears
October 10, 2008
Originally published by 16 Blocks

The US Department of Health and Human Services thinks that there is a big problem, and they've come up with some big solutions. The HHS document entitled "Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law"explains that, while often health service providers have to sign forms stating they will not discriminate "on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, handicap, age, drug abuse, and alcohol abuse or alcoholism," those same forms fail to point out that the provider has the right to discriminate after all, as long as it is framed as "conscience."

The "Church Laws" that were passed in the 1970s have long protected doctors from being forced to provide abortions, and from being discriminated against for their refusal. There is no evidence of an epidemic of health care workers facing discrimination because they won't perform abortions. Even so, the HHS says they need $44 million to make more people aware that the conscience clauses exist, and that they apply not only to doctors, but to every person involved in health care: from the person that sterilizes the instruments, to the person that draws your blood, to the person that disposes of the medical waste.

It appears, though, that at least according to HHS's latest opus, "conscience" refers specifically to a worker's objection to the prevention or termination of pregnancy. This point is inarguable, as the only conscience-related medical procedures mentioned by name in the entire 40+ page PDF file are abortion and sterilization. An earlier version of this document had language that included all birth control but those parts were eventually removed.

How the existing rules allow doctors to withhold legal medical services isn't clear. The legislation of the right of doctors to refuse abortions could be interpreted to be discrimination against patients, but that is not how the law is currently applied. The proposed rule expands on this idea of conscientious objection. It is to apply to all "individuals and entities with moral objections to abortion and other medical procedures."

That "other medical procedures" part is really interesting. One could claim practically anything offended one's conscience. One could grimly envision doctors refusing emergency contraception and appropriate counseling for rape victims. Significantly, there is no burden on any health care worker to declare in advance what procedures he or she finds objectionable. The proposed rule simply states outright, "The Department seeks to avoid judging whether a particular action is genuinely offensive to an individual."

This could lead to all kinds of scenarios. Can we look forward to doctors refusing to treat patients because they are gay or transgender? A pharmacist who joins Scientology and refuses to fill Zoloft prescriptions? A Christian doctor who refuses to treat atheists? An anti-war nurse who won't draw blood from politicians and big-business tycoons that profit from war? A radical feminist emergency room doctor who declines to treat pimps or pornographers?

Perhaps people should start preparing special cards to keep in their wallets for emergencies. They could detail religious beliefs, criminal records, job histories, and voting records in addition to blood types and insurance status. Then the entire hospital staff could peruse them and determine whether treatment would offend anyone's conscience, hopefully in time to save the patient.