Extract This case concerns the justification of moral constraints that a physician group decides to apply to itself in the provision of patient services. Family physicians confront this issue with regard to reproductive medical services and state laws such as those in Oregon regarding physician-assisted suicide. Whether such constraints are ethically justified depends on the distinction between professional medical ethics and individual conscience.
Extract This article attempts to engage only in a discussion of the ethical dimensions of mandatory overtime; the economic and empirical discussions are left for others to explore. Using the framework of “conscience,” we can begin to see some of the dynamics underlying the almost visceral reaction of some nurses to the issue of mandatory overtime.
Extract In the first part of this article the input of palliative care organisations in the Dutch euthanasia debate is described and explained by situating it in its broader context. First opinions on euthanasia of a variety of palliative care organisations are described. Secondly the Dutch debate on palliative care and euthanasia is analysed and evaluated. In a second part of this article a brief introduction to Belgian palliative care is given. This introduction is followed by an overview of the way organised palliative care has been active in the Belgian euthanasia debate. Attention too is given to the Belgian discussion on palliative sedation, sedation being presented by some as the palliative alternative to euthanasia but seen by others as nothing but euthanasia in disguise
Abstract Objectives: To determine emergency department (ED) practitioner willingness to offer emergency contraception (EC) following sexual assault and consensual sex, and to compare responses of practitioners from states whose laws permit the refusal, discussion, counseling, and referral of patients for abortions (often called “opt-out” or “abortion-related conscience clauses”) with those of practitioners from states without these laws.
Methods: Using a structured questionnaire, a convenience sample of ED practitioners attending a national emergency medicine meeting was surveyed.
Results: The 600 respondents were: 71% male, 29% female; 34% academic, 26% community, and 33% resident physicians; and 7% nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Many respondents (88%) were inclined to offer EC to those sexually assaulted by unknown assailants. More practitioners said they were willing to offer EC if the assailant was known to be HIV-infected rather than if the assailant had low HIV risk factors (90% vs. 79%, p < 0.01). More respondents would prescribe EC after sexual assault than consensual sex (88% vs. 73%, p < 0.01). The rates of willingness to offer EC were the same for practitioners in states with “abortion-related conscience clauses” and those from other states.
Conclusions: Most ED practitioners said they were willing to offer EC. Although the risk of pregnancy exists after consensual sex, practitioners were less willing to prescribe EC after those exposures than for sexual assault. “Abortion-related conscience clauses” did not seem to influence willingness to offer EC.
Extract This note questions the wisdom of those who contend that Catholic health providers, to constitutionally qualify for government assistance or be permitted to merge with public entities, must be stripped of that which makes them most effective – their religious identity. The threat to sectarian healthcare has steadily been on the rise as can be seen in actions such as the American Public Health Association’s recent approval of a policy statement recommending more government oversight to preclude the dropping of reproductive services when Catholic and Non-Catholic hospitals merge. Section II explores why these mergers occur and why certain services are subsequently dropped. Section III applies a historical analysis to refute the argument that public and private are meant to remain separate. After establishing that pluralism has been and is presently the foundation of the American society and its healthcare, section IV evaluates whether the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is in danger of violation by mergers between Catholic and Non-Catholic hospitals. Finally, section V addresses the argument that Catholic healthcare mergers constructively deny women, most especially indigent women in rural areas, the right to reproductive services, namely abortion.
Abstract From a liberationist, feminist, and Catholic point of view, this article attempts to understand the decision of abortion. . . . The paper offers solutions to end the ugliness of the abortion debate by suggesting that we would be able to progress further on the issue of abortion if we looked for the good in the opposing viewpoint. The article continues with a discussion of Catholics For a Free Choice’s position on abortion, and notes firstly that there is no firm position within the Catholic Church on when the fetus becomes a person; secondly that the principle of probablism in Roman Catholicism holds that where the church cannot speak definitively on a matter of fact (in this case, on the personhood of the fetus), the consciences of individual Catholics must be primary and respected, and thirdly that the absolute prohibition on abortion by the church is not infallible. In conclusion, only the woman herself can make the abortion decision.
Extract Conclusion The trend of hospital mergers between religious and non-religious hospitals may continue to threaten access to reproductive health services, especially for patients who already have limited access because they live in rural areas or have low incomes.l” However, as this essay suggests, there are several avenues that concerned citizens and activists can take to try to prevent the loss of these vital services.l ” The creativity and determination of those who commit themselves to ensuring that reproductive health services will continue to be available to all who desire them has resulted in several viable legal and practical methods of intervention. Although I believe it is important to respect the religious rights and beliefs of others. when the expression of these beliefs encroaches on patients’ rights to access basic health services, intervention is appropriate and necessary. I hope that public outcry, in the forms of legal and grassroots action, will persuade state actors, legislatures, hospital administrators, and clergy to properly acknowledge patients’ rights and participate in the creation of acceptable solutions to the financial problems that hospitals increasingly face. We need solutions that do not deny essential health services to any group of people.
(Flanders Palliative Care Federation Advocates A Palliative Filter in the Euthanasia Procedure)
Bert Broeckaert
Ethische Perspectieven
Abstract Op 20 maart 2001 werd het euthanasiewetsvoorstel van de meerderheidspartijen, samen met een wetsvoorstel over palliatieve zorg, goedgekeurd door de Verenigde Commissies voor Justitie en Sociale Aangelegenheden. Op initiatief van de Senaatsvoorzitter werd het euthanasiewetsvoorstel intussen doorgestuurd naar de Raad Van State, voor een spoedadvies. In zijn advies (2 juli 2001) stelt de Raad Van State uitdrukkelijk dat het euthanasiewetsvoorstel niet in strijd is met artikel 2 van het Europees Verdrag over de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM) en artikel 6 van het Internationaal Verdrag inzake Burgerlijke en Politieke Rechten (IVBPR), artikels die handelen over het door de wet beschermde recht op leven. Wat betreft het euthanasievoorstel beperkt de Raad van State zich tot detailkritiek.
In de bespreking van het wetsvoorstel over palliatieve zorg is de toon heel anders: hier toont de Raad Van State zich bijzonder kritisch. Vragen worden onder meer gesteld bij de vaagheid van de term palliatieve zorg, bij gecontroleerde sedatie en bij de federale bevoegdheid wat betreft de palliatieve zorg. Na het zomerreces is het nu (van 23 tot 25 oktober 2001) aan de plenaire vergadering van de Senaat om zich over het euthanasiewetsvoorstel uit te spreken.
Met de onderstaande tekst (26 september 2001) wil de Federatie Palliatieve Zorg Vlaanderen haar voorstel om in de euthanasieprocedure een palliatieve filter in te bouwen nogmaals onder de aandacht van de Senatoren brengen.
[Translation] On March 20, 2001, the euthanasia bill proposed by the majority parties, along with a bill on palliative care, was approved by the United Committees on Justice and Social Affairs. At the initiative of the Senate President, the euthanasia bill has now been forwarded to the Council of State for urgent advice. In its advice (July 2, 2001), the Council of State expressly states that the euthanasia bill does not conflict with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR), articles dealing with the right to life protected by law. With regard to the euthanasia proposal, the Council of State restricts itself to detailed criticism.
In the discussion of the bill on palliative care, the tone is very different: the Council of State is particularly critical here. Questions are asked about the vagueness of the term palliative care, about controlled sedation and about the federal competence with regard to palliative care. After the summer recess, it is now (from 23 to 25 October 2001) up to the plenary session of the Senate to pronounce on the euthanasia bill.
With the text below (September 26, 2001), the Federation Palliative Care Flanders wants to bring its proposal to include a palliative filter in the euthanasia procedure once again to the attention of the Senators.
Journal Synopsis All jurisdictions in the US require proof of vaccination for school entrance. Most states permit non-medical exemptions. Public health officials must balance the rights of individuals to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children with the individual and societal risks associated with choosing not to vaccinate (i.e., claiming an exemption). To assist the public health community in optimally reaching this balance, this analysis examines the constitutional basis of nonmedical exemptions and examines policies governing conscientious objection to conscription as a possible model. The jurisprudence that the US Supreme Court has developed in cases in which religious beliefs conflict with public or state interests suggests that mandatory immunization against dangerous diseases does not violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Accordingly, states do not have a constitutional obligation to enact religious exemptions. Applying the model of conscientious objectors to conscription suggests that if states choose to offer nonmedical exemptions, they may be able to optimally balance individual freedoms with public good by considering the sincerity of beliefs and requiring parents considering exemptions to attend individual educational counseling.
Extract “Conscience clauses,” protecting the free exercise of religion in ethical decision-making by religiously affiliated hospitals, I believe, should continue to be absolute in reproductive medicine where the hospitals are clearly and unmistakably religious and patient choices of providers are free and fully informed. This conclusion is compelled by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as well as by the national interest in preserving and promoting diversity in the voluntary health care sector.
