Conscience Clauses Not Just Applied to Abortion Anymore

The first U.S. national conscience clause law was enacted shortly after Roe vs. Wade and applied only to abortion and sterilization. However, as life-saving, life-giving, life-preventing, and life- taking medical technologies have advanced or grown in usage, the application has expanded to areas such as: birth control, non-conventional reproduction, stem cell research, etc.. The Obama administration announced in March of 2009 that it planned to rescind conscious clause regulations enacted during the Bush administration, but has yet to do so.

A recent news story involved evangelical Christian Dr. Michele Phillips of San Antonio, Texas and an unmarried patient requesting birth control pills. Dr. Phillips refused to write the prescription as she claimed, “I’m not going to give any kind of medication I see as harmful” and “I could not ethically give that type of medication to a single woman.” She felt that the drugs wouldn’t protect the patient from “emotional trauma from multiple partners or sexually transmitted diseases.” The news has been littered with alike stories of pharmacists refusing to fill the morning after or birth control pills, doctors refusing to prescribe, medical staff refusing to be involved with abortions, etc..

However, the intersection between moral objection and medical ethics is becoming closer and closer ….creating a legal vs. moral quagmire. Where exactly is the line between a doctor staying true to their religious beliefs or conscious and ignoring the welfare of their patient. What if an emergency room doctor of the Jehovah’s Witness faith refused to give a patient bleeding to death a blood transfusion? The mere seconds that it would take to get another doctor to order the procedure can mean the difference between life and death. This may seem like a improbable scenario, but it isn’t so far fetched when you look at some of the cases where medical workers have claimed a job duty isn’t congruent with their faith, religion, or conscious. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities annual meeting examined some incidences such as: a housekeeper that refused to clean a stem cell lab, a respiratory therapist that refused to turn off a ventilator, an ultrasound technologist that refused to work on Saturdays, nurses that refuse to administer vaccines, etc..

It took awhile for me to get a perspective on this subject because I have a hard time overlooking the need to follow ones conscious. However, change the profession to a judge that refuses to be involved with a murder case because he is opposed to the states death penalty, a public defender that refuses to represent a client because their gut tells them the person is guilty, a McDonalds employee that refuses to cook beef because they are a vegan, a satellite installer that refuses to do an installation that includes a pornography channel, a hotel clerk that refuses to rent rooms to unmarried couples, a clerk that refuses to ring up sales for tobacco, etc… A medical professional refusing to provide any legal medical service is just as absurd as these other professions refusing their services.

Do you agree with the medical community using conscience clauses to escape medical practice that they do not agree with?