Comments on: Choice For Me, But Not For Thee http://www.jennqpublic.com/choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee/ one part reason, two parts awesome Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:52:04 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Choice For Me, But Not For Thee - Smart Girl Nation http://www.jennqpublic.com/choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee/comment-page-1/#comment-999 Choice For Me, But Not For Thee - Smart Girl Nation Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:41:44 +0000 http://www.jennqpublic.com/?p=949#comment-999 [...] following article by Jenn Q. Public originally appeared on JennQPublic.com. image credit: bjearwicke at [...] [...] following article by Jenn Q. Public originally appeared on JennQPublic.com. image credit: bjearwicke at [...]

]]> By: Eclectic Radical http://www.jennqpublic.com/choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee/comment-page-1/#comment-715 Eclectic Radical Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:51:39 +0000 http://www.jennqpublic.com/?p=949#comment-715 The majority of us concerned about provider conscience laws are concerned about women whose health care choices are limited by either their health care provider or their economic situation not being able to receive the assistance they are seeking. Most of us have no interest in forcing anyone unwilling to perform an abortion to do so, but we do have a desire to make sure women have access to whatever services they need... abortion or otherwise. The reason for much of the hue and cry over the Bush legislation was that, given the most favorably pro-life interpretation, it would allow a pro-life medical assistant to deny a woman seeking family planning services (abortion or otherwise) access to doctors and counselors who might themselves be pro-choice were said medical assistant to be working the front desk the day the woman in need showed up at the clinic. That said, I agree with you about any litmus test for doctors... pro-choice or pro-life. Someone's moral, religious, or political views should not be held up to inquisition as part of the medical certification process. In my experience, most pro-life doctors would be willing (though certainly not eager) to perform an abortion in a situation where it was necessary to save the life of the mother and that is all that is necessary. A patient not in that kind of crisis will not be in a position where she cannot find a doctor willing to help. I believe the Bush regulation, as written, is bad because it allows far too many loopholes for misconduct by individuals not responsible for making health care decisions in other circumstances and because it would also, as written, protect medical professionals who refused to give a blood transfusion or perform surgery if this violated their religious beliefs, even if the patient died. The language is literally that loose, and that is not at all a good thing. My reservations about the specific regulations in question aside, the idea of forbidding pro-life doctors from choosing an OB-GYN specialty is repugnant. The solution is improving the family planning infrastructure, not attempting to create a thought police for doctors. The majority of us concerned about provider conscience laws are concerned about women whose health care choices are limited by either their health care provider or their economic situation not being able to receive the assistance they are seeking. Most of us have no interest in forcing anyone unwilling to perform an abortion to do so, but we do have a desire to make sure women have access to whatever services they need… abortion or otherwise. The reason for much of the hue and cry over the Bush legislation was that, given the most favorably pro-life interpretation, it would allow a pro-life medical assistant to deny a woman seeking family planning services (abortion or otherwise) access to doctors and counselors who might themselves be pro-choice were said medical assistant to be working the front desk the day the woman in need showed up at the clinic.

That said, I agree with you about any litmus test for doctors… pro-choice or pro-life. Someone’s moral, religious, or political views should not be held up to inquisition as part of the medical certification process. In my experience, most pro-life doctors would be willing (though certainly not eager) to perform an abortion in a situation where it was necessary to save the life of the mother and that is all that is necessary. A patient not in that kind of crisis will not be in a position where she cannot find a doctor willing to help.

I believe the Bush regulation, as written, is bad because it allows far too many loopholes for misconduct by individuals not responsible for making health care decisions in other circumstances and because it would also, as written, protect medical professionals who refused to give a blood transfusion or perform surgery if this violated their religious beliefs, even if the patient died. The language is literally that loose, and that is not at all a good thing.

My reservations about the specific regulations in question aside, the idea of forbidding pro-life doctors from choosing an OB-GYN specialty is repugnant. The solution is improving the family planning infrastructure, not attempting to create a thought police for doctors.

]]>