Quote:
Originally Posted by vivfox
The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.
The rule wouldn't stop with women's issues. It would be against gays too. HIV patients and people with infectious diseases might suffer as well. The list could go on and on. How do we prevent this from happening?
|
Something tells me it won't make it. Imagine the CEOs of hospitals who now have to worry about an employee not treating someone based on a moral issue. That can really be just about anything and certainly doesn't limit the hospital's liability. I am sure that most of the Medical lobbyists will be all over this thing just on the basis of liability alone.
Imagine if someone at a hospital fails to treat a heart attack victim because they are morally opposed to gays. The man dies because of the delay or lack of treatment. His wife then sues the hospital for negligence and malpractice. The moral opposition is rather hard to pin down during an emergency as it would allow people act on assumptions. You really couldn't tell if someone on a gurney hooked up to monitors was gay or straight. That moral objection could cost the hospital millions. The only person protected is the employee, even if they are wrong about the issue that they claimed to be morally against.
I am sure that hospitals understand this quite well. You could be morally opposed to anything. Ironically, if you ever saw cases in which parents claimed to be morally opposed to medical treatment of any kind for their child, it is rather common that one or both of those parents work in health care.