Legislating Morality

In a 11th hour ruling from the Bush Administration that gives healthcare workers, hospitals, and insurers more leeway to refuse health services for moral or religious reasons.

The rule was issued on December 19th and becomes effective in just 30 days. It’s main provisions broadens the number of healthcare workers and institutions that may refuse care based on “sincere religious belief or moral conviction” to provide care or referrals to patients.

So why don’t we just segregate healthcare again.

Where’s the lawmakers and individuals who are so outraged and oppose desegregated schools, Affirmative Action and anything against the constitution? Where’s your outrage now?

Some may say that Affirmative Action, School Desegregation and the Constitution has nothing to do with refusing healthcare based on moral or religious basis. And I would say you’re wrong. It’s very similar.

The argument against Affirmative Action is that it promotes preferences based on race. Refusing healthcare to someone who needs it based on your moral or religious beliefs is just as unfair as those who are against Affirmative Action.

Opponents of School Desegregation argue that you are forcing children to attend a school not in their neighborhood due to race, economics and community. Why bus them across town when there’s a school 5 blocks away? How is that different than the Atheist or Muslim who lives two minutes from Baptist Hospital who is experiencing chest pains and need medical attention? Because they are not Christian and you are you as a Doctor, Nurse or Insurer refuse to help them.

This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.” says Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in a statement.

What sense does this make? Why take the Hippocratic Oath?

I guess the Bush Administration assumed that since the Hippocratic Oath is an obligatory oath it could run this through the darkness of night.

The ruling, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, covers an estimated 571,947 “entities” including doctors’ offices, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, medical and nursing schools, diagnostic labs, nursing homes, and state governments.

Each of these entities is required to certify in writing that they will comply with the ruling. Failure to comply may be punished with loss of federal funding.

A wide number of medical groups strongly oppose the new ruling. These groups include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nurses Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 27 state medical associations.

The Catholic Health Association, representing the Catholic hospitals that care for about a sixth of U.S. patients, strongly supports the conscience ruling. The group says it’s seen a number of efforts to force doctors to perform — or make referrals — for abortions and sterilizations.

The Family Research Council, which strongly opposes abortion, also supports the ruling.

I don’t have a problem with you being for or against abortion, but this ruling is about more than just abortion and sterilization. It’s about putting your moral and religious beliefs before a person health.

If you’re Pro-Life shouldn’t you Promote Life in all areas? Refusal of medical service on the basis of a health professionals moral or religious beliefs seems Pro-Choice to me.

Since we’re legislating morality now, why not go to the place many of the supporters of this ruling seek their selective comfort.

Where’s the morality in your religious beliefs if you refuse to tend to the man who was car jacked, injured and left on the side of the road? (Reference to Luke 10:25-37)

For the Christian supporters of this ruling I ask another question that I would like you to consider. When Jesus (The Great Physician) sent out the twelve apostles with the instructions to go among the Gentiles and preach the message that the kingdom of heaven is near, heal the sick, cleanse the leper what does that mean to you?

It’s not the healthy or those who believe as you who need the doctor, but the sick who needs the doctor. Jesus didn’t heal the sick believer, he healed the sick. (Mark 2:13-17)

It is because of your political affiliation, religious belief or disbelief, constitutional value and morality you should speak out against the Bush Administration’s legislation on morality.

References & Inspiration
WebMD – 12/19/08 “Controversy Over New Conscience Rule


4 thoughts on “Legislating Morality

  1. I would speak out by why? I’d rather speak my desired reality into existence like this – I am so thankfyul and grateful that the USA is now a sane nation – healthcare coverse every person and I love living here. Think my words have no affect – check the Quantum Science my friends http://hakashamut.wordpress.com

  2. As a healthcare professional, I can assure you that those of us who return to this field proudly day after day are called by a power higher than any politician to be held accountable for the promises we made when we entered the field. Having said that, I would also like to add not to prejudge the ruling til you’ve walked a mile … You wouldn’t believe things many professionals have been forced to do that goes against their very core belief system for fear of being financially and professionally ruined. I assume you enjoy your job and feel called to preform with conviction and compassion in the neccessary compassion. Imagine being forced to preform against your core beliefs. It no longer becomes a passion to help others but a pay check given for compromising yourself. I know noone who would be willing to endure the things we, as professional caregivers, endure for a paycheck. What good is it if I gain the whole world and loose my soul?

    1. Although I have worked in healthcare, but in Healthcare IT I have heard, witness many things that were unfair. My point was beyond divisive issues, such as abortion, but into how this can be applied in other areas. You may disagree, but my examples are valid. We can only go back 40 years and in some areas less to recall similar laws, but they were better known as Jim Crow Laws. My parents couldn’t have been born in the same hospital that my sister and I were born in. If they walked into any hospital during the time they were dating (mid to late 60s) and one of them was experiencing a heart attack they would have been turned away and sent to the “Negro Hospital” because of similar laws.

      So I guess the doctors who denied a person on bases of their own moral beliefs would have lost their soul then. We will gain the world once everyone finds their soul and stand against unjust public policy.

  3. I see your point but I think you miss mine. If you are forcing a physician to care for someone for the monetary issue and out of fear of prosecution, what kind of care do you honestly think they will give. I have witnessed many things that would make you say,”say it ain’t so.” I’m proud of how far we’ve come but I think there are so many strides yet to take to reach where we need to be.I believe there other reasonings behind the ruling that you just might not see yet and as someone who takes the oath VERY seriously, I hope you never experience the reasoning behind it. Honestly, if we all held ourselves to a higher code and removed a lot of government, wouldn’t the world be a better place? I personally have no desire to gain the world if it means I loose my morality. It is the biggest part of who I am.

Comments are closed.