Extract With regard to Dr. Lee’s comment that the proposed Wisconsin legislation does not eliminate a health care provider’s duty to provide a referral after refusing to perform a service, I would note that Assembly Bill 207 . . . specifically permits health care providers’ refusals to “participate in” services they find personally objectionable, with “participate in” specifically defined . . . as “to perform; practice; engage in; assist in; recommend; counsel in favor of; make referrals for; prescribe, dispense or administer drugs”.
Responding to: Charo RA. The Celestial Fire of Conscience – Refusing to Deliver Medical Care N Eng J Med 352:24, June 16, 2005
Extract It is especially noteworthy that, in an essay about the exercise of freedom of conscience by health care workers, Professor R. Alta Charo has virtually nothing to say about freedom or conscience (The Celestial Fire of Conscience- Refusing to Deliver Medical Care. N Eng J Med 352:24, June 16, 2005). “Conscience clauses,” yes: conscientious objection, to be sure: and she mentions acts of conscience and the right of conscience. But nothing about freedom, and, on the subject of conscience itself, the most she can muster is, “Conscience is a tricky business.”
Abstract What has been lost in the media coverage of and political dialogue about this issue are the nuances and implications of conscientious objection. Like their physician and nurse colleagues, pharmacists routinely operate within both professional and personal ethical frameworks (3). On a personal level, pharmacists have the same rights as their fellow health-care colleagues. Like a surgeon who refuses to perform abortions because of a personal moral objection or a nurse who believes that turning off a patient’s respirator would contradict her beliefs on the sanctity of life, pharmacists must be allowed to be true to their own belief systems as they practice their profession. This does not mean that pharmacists should be allowed to impose their personal morals on patients under their care. As with physicians and nurses, it simply means that pharmacists must maintain the right to “step away” from the offending activity and should refer the patient in question to another pharmacist who can dispense the prescription.
Abstract Apparently heeding George Washington’s call to “labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience,” physicians, nurses, and pharmacists are increasingly claiming a right to the autonomy not only to refuse to provide services they find objectionable, but even to refuse to refer patients to another provider and, more recently, to inform them of the existence of legal options for care.
Extract . . . In medical and legal opinion, Terri Schiavo’s cognizance of her self and her life ended in 1990, when she suffered a cardiac arrhythmia and massive cerebral cortical encephalopathy that left her in a persistent vegetative state. Her facial expressions, along with a seemingly “normal” sleep–wake cycle, constituted but one dimension of the cruelty of this condition. . .
. . .More than one commentator has viewed the “right- to-life” fight to prolong Schiavo’s pitiable existence as an anti-abortion campaign “by other means.” . . .
. . . there seems little doubt that, in North America, ideology and religion have begun to seriously distort the type of consensus-building that is the proper business of democratic politics . . .
Where do physicians find themselves in such debates? Medicine is a secular and scientific profession that, for all that, must still contend with the sacred matters of birth, life and death. In practice, physicians must set aside their own beliefs in deference to the moral autonomy of each patient — or else transfer that patient’s care to someone who can meet this secular ethic. . .
. . .The emotionalism and rancour that swirled around the Schiavo case underscores a wider societal duty borne by the medical and scientific community. This is to remain alert to political and legislative tendencies that impose imprecise moral generalizations on the majority, at the expense of reason, scientific understanding and, not infrequently, compassion.
As neither our original Commentary on access to emergency contraception nor our letter response was suitable for fully referenced legal or ethical reasoning, we appreciate this opportunity to expand a little on the substance of both, addressing the points Mr Murphy raises.
In a letter in the February issue of JOGC, Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens state, “Physicians who feel entitled to subordinate their patient’s desire for well-being to the service of their own personal morality or conscience should not practise clinical medicine” (emphasis added). The statement is unsupported by their own legal references, and it has little to recommend it as an ordering principle in the practice of medicine.
Extract Women in some parts of England have to wait up to two months from first seeking advice about an abortion to having the procedure, says a survey. The delays in referral mean that many women are presenting to services later than nine weeks pregnant and cannot be considered for early medical termination using the abortion pill, mifepristone, despite this being a popular option among women. . .The survey, which was conducted by Voice for Choice—an alliance of national pro-choice organisations including British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Marie Stopes International, and the Family Planning Association—reviewed the abortion services of 243 primary care trusts.
Extract The CMA Code of Ethics begins with the principle that an ethical physician will consider first the well-being of the patient. Physicians who feel entitled to subordinate their patients’ desire for well-being to the service of their own personal morality or conscience should not practise clinical medicine.
Abstract The merits of non-prescription distribution of levonorgestrel as emergency contraception (EC), which is effective within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, are contentious. The advantage of promptness and convenience of access may be offset by the absence of medical counselling. Opposition to EC based on the possibility of the drug acting after fertilization but before implantation departs from standard medical criteria of pregnancy. Physicians who propose to apply non-medical criteria, and use religious objections to abortion to deny prescription of EC, must publicize their opposition in advance, so that women may seek assistance elsewhere. When objecting practitioners, or facilities, become responsible for women for whom EC is indicated, such as rape victims, they are bound ethically and legally to refer them to reasonably accessible non-objecting sources of care.
