HHS proposal says doctors can refuse abortions, referrals

[ccharles000]

The shit hath officially hit the fan. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released their proposed regulations (you can read them here) to allow health care providers to refuse to perform abortions, or refer women to others who might.

While we've been anticipating this, that doesn't make it any less upsetting. The title of the HHS release is enough to make one fume: "Regulation Proposed to Help Protect Health Care Providers from Discrimination." That's right - Discrimination. And though the regulations don't define contraception as abortion, the ACLU thinks there could be some wiggle room.

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt also blogged about the release yesterday as well, saying:

"This became a topical matter when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued guidelines that could shape board certification requirements and necessitate a doctor to perform abortions to be considered competent."
Which is actually anything but the truth - ACOG actually doesn't have the power to take away board certifications. But the HHS is using this to create the illusion that providers' rights are under vicious attack, when in reality the regulations are the offense, blatantly threatening our reproductive freedoms - particularly for uninsured and low-income women. Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project made a statement in their press release:

"For years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care. The proposed regulations appear to take patients' health needs out of the equation.
"At a time when more and more Americans are either uninsured or struggling with the soaring costs of health care, the federal government should be expanding, not hampering access to important health services."


Amen to that. Take action on these regulations by telling HHS and your members of Congress that women's access to reproductive health shouldn't be compromised.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010576.html

[spanone]

1. this shit is going to happen fast and furiously between now & january..we'd best be ready

[Igel]

2. I've had two doctors refuse my preferred treatment in the last 6 months.

One couldn't be bothered to explain himself. "If you don't like it, leave."

Another said it was a possible course of treatment, but she wasn't going to be patient. She evaluated some of the risks differently--she assumes I'll have insurance and live in a large city for the rest of my life, where the likely downside is easy treatable--and said I may be free to deny consent, but she was free to deny treatment.

My preferred treatments weren't "alternative", or dangerous. In some Western countries they're the standard, and the treatments offered are the ones doctors would probably reject. The ones I wanted were dispreferred, they weren't what the docs thought would be the best option for me. In one case, it was a kind of moral argument: If my preferred treatment fails, I waste resources and the doctor's time; since the risk of complication was slightly higher, it was also immoral because I could be hurting myself. I wasn't free to evaluate the risks and benefits and impose my solution on the doctor.

There was no violation of ethics here, except possibly in idiot-boy's utter contempt at the idea of actually explaining his reasoning and how his prescribed course of treatment took into account the various facts in my case.

Hyperthyroidism and the use of anti-thyroid drugs in the treatment of Graves disease aren't politically or socially relevant issues. However, I should have no less control over my thyroid that a pregnant woman over her uterus. Same argument, same principle. The canon of ethics says that doctors are professionals, and free agents. So it's a compromise, in most cases: They can deny treatment, I can deny consent. We can rewrite the rules, but most people hate having their employment contract unilaterally rewritten after building up years of seniority. Few unions would agree to that without a fight.

So what finally happened? I gave consent and then dinked around with medications and supplements to make sure the effective dose wasn't what the doctor got into me, but what got into my thyroid. Also perfectly legal and ethical. (Not sure the doc will agree with me, but who cares?)

Had I been a coward, or unable to work through the chemistry, I'd have been at the doctors' mercy. Then again, those are limitations on my behavior, not the doctors'.