|
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Your doctor may be under fire for what he or she will not do for patients. Organizations and some patients are making life difficult for doctors who choose not to perform abortions or refer patients to doctors who will do these and other life-ending procedures.
In fact, a recent informal survey of doctors who belong to the Christian Medical and Dental Association found that almost 40 percent of respondents said that they had been discriminated against for their moral choices of what services not to offer their patients.
“I think it is a very big deal,” said Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the CMDA. “We see these trends increasing.”
The trends Stevens and others are seeing are challenges to the federal statute called the “Weldon Amendment” and to physicians’ “conscience rights.”
The Weldon Amendment protects medical personnel from performing certain procedures without being discriminated against. Under the amendment, a “physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility” may refuse abortions, counseling, or referrals, even in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency.
The amendment was recently challenged by the state of California, but in March a federal court rejected the challenge, siding with pro-life medical professionals and the federal government.
“We are seeing the Weldon Amendment under increasing attack. This was the third or fourth time since its inception,” Stevens said of the amendment that was approved in 2004.
What does this mean for patients and doctors who do not support abortion? Stevens said it means that they have to get involved and educate themselves on the ethical issues that are facing those in the medical field.
“The medical field is becoming more consumer-driven, and we are seeing discrimination of doctors who won’t offer services, such as abortions, increasing on the radar,” Stevens said.
Litigation Counsel M. Casey Mattox of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom agrees.
“Pro-life medical professionals shouldn’t be discriminated against for abiding by their beliefs,” Mattox said in a statement. “This ruling (in the California case) means that California will remain prohibited from fining and criminally prosecuting pro-life doctors because they refuse to perform abortions. The Weldon Amendment remains a critical protection for the rights of conscience of pro-life healthcare workers.”
Conscience rights
As Mattox mentioned, another ethical issue facing the medical field is the challenge of physicians’ “conscience rights.” Stevens said that this is an issue that his organization spends more time on than any other issue because it is so fundamental and has the ability to cripple the rights of doctors who refuse to offer certain services.
He said that although it is currently against the law to discriminate against doctors who refuse to offer abortions and other services, it is happening—sometimes discreetly, sometimes not.
“I think it is a devious strategy that is going to have long-term effects on Christians and health care” Stevens said.
The pressure on physicians and pharmacists to offer services such as abortions or the morning-after pill is leading those who stand firm against it to face malpractice lawsuits and/or to leave the profession, said Stevens.
“We are seeing an increase in people getting out of the medical field in their mid-50s when they are in their prime,” he said. “We see medical students not picking certain (specialties) because they know they will be swimming against the current.”
In the informal CMDA survey, 23 percent of respondents said that right of conscience is an issue that is hitting them hard when they refuse certain services based on ethical and moral beliefs.
“I think we’re going to see increasing attacks on the profession,” Stevens said. “We are going to see a lot of money from abortion groups so that there is a well-funded attack on the right of refusal … to force people in a corner to give up their rights and possibly their occupation.”
The Hippocratic Oath
Stevens said that while millions of dollars are being thrown at this issue, the debate is not a new one. He said that in Hippocrates’ day, some 2,500 years ago, the same right of conscience was being challenged, and that is when the Hippocratic Oath came into being.
Hippocrates said in the oath, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give a woman an abortive remedy.”
However, Stevens said that this oath is no longer the cornerstone of medical practice and that most medical schools no longer administer the oath.
The issue of “right of conscience” was again addressed by James Madison when the Bill of Rights was being written. He said that “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”
“That’s about as clear as you can get,” Stevens said. “This was very clearly addressed when they were writing the Bill of Rights.”
Stevens said that Christians need to educate themselves on what is going on in this arena because it will affect the future of their health care and their doctors. He said after educating themselves, they need to speak out to their legislators and to the groups who are going after pro-life physicians.
Action point: To learn more information about this issue visit:
• www.cmda.org
• www.consciencelaws.org
• www.physiciansforlife.org
|
