Comments on: Physician Conscience Blog III

By: Dan Raybrig

Dan Raybrig — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Thank you Planned Parenthood and other organizations for forcing HHS to back down from their plans to redefine abortion to include birth control. HHS attempts to place additional hurdles in the path of vulnerable women who need comprehensive medical care are despicable, but it could have been worse (and would have been if nobody had spoken out).

By: Mary F. Forrester, Concerned Women for America of North Carolina

Mary F. Forrester, Concerned Women for America of North Carolina — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

As the spouse of a physician, we take the Hippocractic Oath seriously. It says, “first do no harm.” Infanticide certainly comes under the heading of harm. You can call it CHOICE or anything else you want but it is murder just the same. And those who practice it will have to answer for their decisions. But forcing those who abide by the Judeo-Chritian ethics and the Ten Commandments, which has been the social code of Justice for the past 5,000 years in the civilized world, you will be forcing them to be murderers. May God have mercy on us as a people and as a nation.

By: Reverend Otter, Alaska

Reverend Otter, Alaska — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Secretary Leavitt, since you support the faith-based right-of-conscience for physicians to refuse service to patients, do you also support the faith-based right-of-conscience for Muslim cab drivers to refuse service to passengers that happen to be carrying unopened alcohol? (cf Minneapolis-St. Paul airport-area)

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/02/27/cabhearing/

If not, please explain the difference between these instances of faith-based refusal-of-service, because they seem identical from where I'm sitting. Thanks in advance.

By: Patrick Mongan, MD

Patrick Mongan, MD — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

No person including physicians or religious institutions should be forced to provide a service they believe is clearly immoral. As a faculty member I have told students of various faiths that I would do all I could to help them not violate their conscience as they care for patients. Thank you for this rule Secretary Mark Leavitt.

Patrick Mongan, MD, MAPS

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Thank you Secretary Leavitt for clarifying your position. I know from your past writing that you are a highly intelligent man but religion can do strange things to intelligence and so we all can use a wakeup call now and then. Here is an experience that I had in the 70's that I will use to try to use as illustration of the fine lines that we walk when people work for federally funded organization.
I was working in a Navy exchange warehouse and I was told to process some orders for cigarettes, as my boss new that I was quite allergic to tobacco, I tried to get out of that part of the job by saying the it violated my conscience to handle tobacco. She said that if I didn't move the cigarettes, I would be out of a job because government jobs will be done without religious bias. I squeezed and wheezed a lot as I moved the cigarettes but she had made her point.
Federally funded jobs should not be done with religious bias, you really should stop recommending that anyone's rights should be allowed to step on someone else's rights just because they have one religion verses another. Please wake up and stop blindly allowing the "pro-life" religious walk on the rights of those that follow an approach of not producing unwanted children.

By: Deborah Poelstra, RN

Deborah Poelstra, RN — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Freedom of Speech should be available to all. All people in this land of liberty should be able to say "no" to actions with which they disagree. Being forced to participate in any activity against one's conscience or be threatened with loss of employment does not sound like the "land of the free". Instead it appears like an egocentric toddler, demanding his own way, without any regard for others. Everyone knows one demand left unchallenged leads to more demands.

Those who believe in such actions as abortion will always exist for those who want such services. Why do they feel threatened when others disagree? Is it necessary for them to have others' approval?

By: Joseph J. Palus

Joseph J. Palus — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

We support you 100% & the physicians concience rights. Please continue to fight for this important issue.

By: Robin Zimmermann

Robin Zimmermann — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Secretary Leavitt, it should be blatantly obvious why the idea of health care provider conscience is wrong. But since this proposal has gotten as far as it has it has it clearly needs to be stated again.

It opens the ground for anyone to object to anything for any reason. A person going in for medical care is entitled the best and most modern knowledge that medicine and science can offer. It should not be limited to an individual's doctor's moral beliefs.

We (ostensibly, anyway) live in a secular society. That means in matters like this, you either leave your personal beliefs at home, or you look for different employment.

I'm sure it has already been pointed out to you the many dilemmas that such a law could lead to (Muslim male doctors who don't want to treat women, etc). These are legitimate concerns and this proposed law violates simple common sense.

Moreover does not the Hippocractic Oath dictate that all possible care should be given to the patient? Any health care worker opting out of treatment based on their personal beliefs is violating that oath.

I want to live in a secular country, not a religious one. Please don't allow this proposal to go forward.

By: Richard Sigal

Richard Sigal — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Most ethical issues are not simple. In a complex diverse society they often involve conflicts between reasonable ethical positions. In general most Americans support the freedom of a person not to act against their conscience, but they also support the right of woman to birth control and also to an abortion at least under some conditions. Most Americans also recognize that for most women there are times when using birth control is the socially responsible and ethical action and that even woman opposed to abortion might be forced into that option when faced with a tubule pregnancy or other life threatening conditions. In an area where there is a large choice of physicians and pharmacists there need be no conflict between these positions. If though a physician or pharmacist chooses to practice his or her profession in an area where there is limited access to other suppliers of such services he or she is ethically and should be legally required to provide birth control services and in emergencies an abortion. As a personal note a relative of my wife who lives in rural Oklahoma had a tubule pregnancy and was refused treatment by a prominent local physician.

By: Peg Kenny

Peg Kenny — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Secretary Leavitt, thank you for working to ensure conscience protections for physicians. No physician, nurse practioner, or for that matter, anyone in the medical profession, should be forced against their will to provide abortions. The original Hippocratic Oath made that quite clear. Thank you for the ability to comment on the proposed rule.