Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush issues health care 'conscience' rule (371 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Check this article (0+ / 0-)

    This is from the Houston Press, a left-leaning journal.

    •  that's malpractice (0+ / 0-)

      Connect the dots for me, how does that article relate?

      The issue is withholding treatment. Does this new regulation protect a nurse giving treatment against a doctors order? I doubt it. And the doctors involved were the ones making the decisions, they're already empowered.

      •  No one can treat without orders... (0+ / 0-)

        It's not malpractice if it's legal.  Withholding treatment despite the wishes of the family is the same as euthanasia.  Only doctors make this decision.

        No one can treat a patient without orders from a doctor.

        The doctors are empowered from withholding treatment but if you read this article, the law was never intended to work in this manner.  It's a long article but worth it because it gets into the nuances of the slippery slope.

        Healthcare providers who cannot contradict doctors' orders also cannot speak out about the doctors' behavior without the threat of losing their job.

        •  And the regulations change this how? (0+ / 0-)

          "Healthcare providers who cannot contradict doctors' orders also cannot speak out about the doctors' behavior without the threat of losing their job."
          This isn't a whistle blower law. This is about employees having a right to not participate in procedures they don't think are ethical. Nothing like that happened in the article you cite.

          In fact the situation appears to be peculiar to W's Texas which gives protection from malpractice for patients that die.

          •  Regulation covers them (0+ / 0-)

            First, we should protect health care workers who cannot in good conscience kill someone.  This law protects them.  I'm shocked anyone would be against this regulation because it might somehow deny someone an abortion. This is crazy.

            Second, the regulation behaves also as a whistle-blower law.  A worker cannot be fired for 1) not participating and 2) because of this regulation, can also naturally speak-out about that act.  If the worker is fired for speaking out against the act, this regulation would protect them.  It hits two birds with one stone.

            You said: This is about employees having a right to not participate in procedures they don't think are ethical. Nothing like that happened in the article you cite.

            No one spoke out against it because their jobs were threatened if they did.  The healthcare workers are also forced to not give care when ordered by the hospital.  They have no choice, until now, because they can speak out about the lack of care.

            You said: In fact the situation appears to be peculiar to W's Texas which gives protection from malpractice for patients that die.

            Absolutely.  Don't think other states won't follow.

            •  This law gives more power to hospitals - not less (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kaolin

              This law explicitly gives hospitals, insurance companies and other "health care entities" the right to decide to refuse to allow certain procedures (or pay for them).

              On the other hand, it also prohibits employers from "discriminating" against people who object to certain procedures.

              In other words, you now have the right to go apply for a job at an assisted suicide clinic in Oregon and they can't refuse to hire you based on the fact that you wouldn't do your job (of assisting with suicide).  You don't see how that is fucked up?

              And the threat to abortion isn't theoretical.  It is real.  Abortion is the example used throughout the legislation as an example.  It is inviting hospitals and insurance companies to stop allowing or paying for abortions.  It is inviting anti-abortion wingnuts to apply for receptionist jobs at PP and then refuse to schedule appointments for abortions.  The original proposed text of this memo redefined any procedure that could interfere with a fertilized egg as abortion.  That would include any medical treatment given to a woman of childbearing age since you can't disprove pregnancy until ~2 weeks after fertilization.

              •  Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good (0+ / 0-)

                Is this regulation be so egregiously in error that it should be rejected?  Well, it really doesn't matter because we can't do anything about it.  This is what happens when law is not legislated.  For that, I think all these regulations should be illegal whether in Bush's administration or Obama's (look at all those cheering the upcoming unlegislated EPA possibilities).  But, I think the regulation protects people and life and I support it.  Instead of dismissing it, I hope the next administration can keep the good parts of this, and throw away the rest.  You don't hear that argument here.  It seems like protecting workers from being forced into performing work that's against their conscience is okay as long as it protects abortion.  How did abortion become so sacrosanct to surpass these sort of protections?

                •  ok you obviously don't know what your talking (0+ / 0-)

                  about.

                  You can't enforce laws without regulations.

                  "Instead of dismissing it, I hope the next administration can keep the good parts of this, and throw away the rest."
                  The good parts which actually don't exist, but flow "naturally" out of it, as if regulations were a spring from which law and goodness sprouted forth.

                  However we finally get to what I think your actual argument is:
                  "It seems like protecting workers from being forced into performing work that's against their conscience is okay as long as it protects abortion."
                  Yes you should be able to fire workers who don't want to do their job. Whats so hard about that?

            •  IANAL, but (0+ / 0-)

              "2) because of this regulation, can also naturally speak-out about that act."

              I don't think this naturally follows at all. Refusing to do something you personally disagree with is passive, holding a press conference against your employer is an active act against their interests.

              "No one spoke out against it because their jobs were threatened if they did. "

              There's no reason to think this is true in the example you provided. Have you ever been in customer service? The medical profession isn't so different, people are naturally going to side with their coworkers since usually patients and their families really are just nuts (not saying this is the case here).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site