Culture war shifts to health workers

Almost a year ago, the Washington Post ran a front-page item on pharmacists who are refusing to fill prescriptions when medications violate their “personal moral or religious beliefs.” It caused a fuss, but the scope of the issue was not altogether clear. It was a solid article, but it was vague about how serious a problem this is nationwide. It talked about “some” pharmacists, but didn’t say how many. It mentioned a new “trend” in the culture war, but didn’t say how broad the trend is.

Apparently, it’s a trend that’s reached the big time.

More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients’ rights.

About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and “morning-after” pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians.

Because many legislatures have just convened, advocates on both sides are predicting that the number debating such proposals will increase. At least 18 states are already considering 36 bills.

I just can’t figure out why this is even a legitimate controversy. Pharmacists, by virtue of their professional responsibilities, agree to fill prescriptions. Doctors prescribe a remedy, a patient seeks that remedy, a pharmacist provides the remedy. It’s a pretty simple system. If a pharmacist realizes that he or she may be called on to perform tasks with which they’re uncomfortable, this person has a choice: do the job or find a different job in which these moral quandaries won’t be an issue. In other words, if you don’t like filling prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist.

The same is true throughout the health care field. John Cole summarized this nicely: “If your religious beliefs interfere with your job providing any and all desired or required care for a patient, you have several options — change your job, change your religion, suck it up and hope yours is a forgiving God.”

But that’s not what many legislatures and conservative activists have in mind. Some are even worried about “cyborgs.”

“This goes to the core of what it means to be an American,” said David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. “Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences…. “We are moving into a brave new world of cloning, cyborgs, sex selection, genetic testing of embryos.”

Cyborgs? We need legislation in part because there’s a fear over cyborgs?

At least it’s encouraging to know we’ll be addressing these issues in a reasoned, intellectually-serious way.

Technically, a person with a pace maker in their chest is a Cyborg.

So we are already there 😉

  • Oh, you’re such a kidder, CB. 🙂 As you point out so well with tongue planted firmly in cheek, this debate is about as reasoned as having a nest of fire ants dumped into one’s underwear.

    What’s really disappointing is that at least a number of supposed professionals have allowed themselves to be so ethically and emotionally degraded that they forget why they chose that profession in the first place.

    It’s an issue that’s been simmering for a while, and isn’t it interesting that it now seems to be coming to a boil at the very moment when ID/Creationism has been virtually laughed out of the public arena and is no longer as potent a rallying cry as it once was?

    Lurching from one bogus issue to the next, the knuckle-draggers steadfastly forge ahead back to the 13th century…..

  • The free market will shoot this one down in flames.

    Businesses, in spite of their blather about caring for their workers’ consciences, exist to make money. If they can make money by pandering to consciences, then fine–but if they lose money because customers get pissed off about being refused service and therefore decide to go somewhere where service is more reliable and less preachy, then see what happens to all this.

  • You think these people would embrace the coming of the age of the cyborg. Then G.W.’s brain could be placed in robotic exo-skeleton and rule forever. Did I say brian? I meant heart, or maybe gut or whatever the hell he uses to decide what to do. Actually we’ve already reached the age of the cyborg, haven’t we? Isn’t Cheny on his third heart?

  • One big lawsuit against a pharmacy with a pharmacist who refused some life saving prescription will clear the air.

    Big business might like religion, but they like money a whole bunch more.

  • I saw a very well reasoned article ‘somewhere’ about how pharmacists making these decisons to not fill is an intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship. Given the directions that poorly defined religious beliefs go, it could be just a matter of time before some joker would object to treating STD’s. Things seem to be getting a little carried away.

  • Well, it sure as heck won’t stop there. Let’s say there’s one Pharmacist in Jackson, Mississippi who’ll fill any perscription. You can bet that somehow these people will reach out and touch them.

  • i dont know about you guys, but Im pretty sick and totally embarrassed by how stupid our country is becoming. I can hardly talk to my international friends anymore without having to fall on my sword each time. What the heck is wrong with us?

  • Don’t forget this story from the 2005 Michigan legislature:

    Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

    The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

    The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

    The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

    The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don’t agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

    My question: who else backs this? Who’s coordinating this? ALEC? The Catholic League?

  • If they object to treating gays, do they also refuse to treat people who eat shellfish or wear cotton-polyester blends, adulterers, embezzlers, or CEOs of corporations that behave immorally? Why the focus on only certain types of sin?

  • So to be clear, no global warming and no evolution but cyborgs are totally on the way. Sure….

    Mr. Fibble – “If they can make money by pandering to consciences, then fine–but if they lose money because customers get pissed off about being refused service and therefore decide to go somewhere where service is more reliable and less preachy, then see what happens to all this.”

    I see this similar to abortion. Not all clinics provide abortion service. In a particular area, say South Dakota where it is rural and conservative, the result is that there is something like one clinic in the state that provides abortion services and I believe they have their doctors flown in from Minneapolis. The result is that abortion is really not an available potion to the women in South Dakota. If large areas of the country decided it would be a good idea to allow “god’s pharmasists” to deny service then they effectively limit access to everyone in that area. Would you want to be the only drugstore in Mississippi selling the morning after pill? Judge Roy Moore would set up a campaign office in your parking lot!

  • I’d be interested to know how much of the need for this legislation is coming from the ground up – actual health care workers who have legitimate religious issues of some sort with some aspect of providing health care – and how much is top down – conservative/religious political advocacy groups persuading state legislatures to advance their agenda.

  • This is one of the nuttier non-issues which is being whipped up into an issue. Since forever there have been some medical procedures (or types of patients) that some physicians object to dealing with. One used to be expected to behave like an adult and make sure the patient got the care they needed and were entitled to by law. This was not a big deal. There were lots of “contraceptive care” partnerships between Catholic and non-Catholic physicians. I always assumed that pharmacists were handling their own personal issues with specific medications in the same responsible manner. I suspect they were.
    This is a paper tiger calculated to get people inflamed about the godliness of their own selfish behavior. When did imposing my views on others become a right? This is like all those rude people who insisted in “Merry Christmasing” all the non-Christians they encountered all December.
    I guess as Americans we do have the right to be rude…..

  • Some pharmacists “believe” that morning after pills (EC) cause abortion. They don’t actually cause abortion, but if pharmacists choose to “believe” that they do, then it’s okay to refuse to fill EC Rxs? That’s post-modern science at its best.

  • Re #10, does that mean liberals can refuse to treat conservatives on ethical grounds, and get away with it?

  • In response to G2000, there’s nothing wrong with Americans. Most people I know, myself included, LIKE Americans (I’m British BTW).
    It’s just the nutjobs and theocrats who are running the country that we object to. We certainly don’t tar you all with the same brush. But please do something about the religious right before the American Taliban turn this wonderful country into another Afganistan.

  • MNProgressive,
    Re your post#12, it could be why South Dakota sparsely populated! ‘Course New York is losing people, too.

    Seriously, if I understand capitalism right, if you sell a product people want, then people will buy it. If you dictate what people will buy (which is really what the issue is here), then you wind up like Ford and GM. I.e., succeeded by those companies with more loyalty to the dollar than ideology.

  • The free market won’t exert any pressure on this issue, however, because the demand for the product isn’t that great. Until you’re in the situation of actually needing it, do you know if your pharmacist would provide it?

    This must be a legislated health care issue, and the pharmacists must provide the medicine unless they (through medical training which seems to be failing) determine the medicine harmful to the consumer. At that point, they should notify the prescribing physician immediately.

    This boils down to one principle. Do your job or be fired.

    Wait until a religious zealot becomes a paramedic or a fireman or a cop and refuses to help someone because they are gay or black or Muslim?

    Thankfully, I live in Illinois, and Blagojevic told these wackos to do their jobs or go to jail.

  • “Blagojevic told these wackos to do their jobs or go to jail.”

    Hahahahaha!

    When I lived in IL, I always though Blagojevich was a Bush in Democrat’s clothing, but that’s all right!

    PS–you’re probably right about the demand issue, but a clever media pressure campaign (like Americablog’s lately) can educate consumersabout their rights & convince business decisionmakers that the stigma of being dictatorial to consumers just isn’t worth it. We’ll see!

  • What if one of those health care workers refuses care because they “think” some straight person is “gay.” (This sort of bigotry where straight people are gay bashed happens frequently.)

    What a lawsuit – that won’t quit till heaven melts into hell – will be filed by pursued by the straight surviving family members!

  • Comments are closed.