Law shields providers, neglects patients

Universal health care might just have to wait its turn a little longer on the list of health care-related issues under consideration by legislators. In light of a new proposal set forth by the Department of Health and Human Services, some people’s ability to receive any health care, let alone their ability to pay for it, looks doubtful.

Per the new proposal, the department would require health care providers that are federally funded ““ including physicians, a physician’s staff, anyone receiving medical training, and any public or private hospitals and clinics ““ to certify that no employee would be forced to participate in any medical procedure, function or act that conflicts with their “right of conscience.” In other words, physicians can refuse to perform a service for any reason, even in cases of emergency, as long as they claim that their morals are being jeopardized.

The department claims that the purpose of the proposed rule is to inform and to protect the rights of health care providers against discrimination for not providing services. However, the proposal does more to limit the protection of those who both need the care and rely on the medical knowledge of others to survive.

The Department of Health and Human Services oversees more than 300 health care programs nationwide, and funds grants for most physicians, clinics, treatment centers and university hospitals. If this proposal is accepted, physicians and their staffs across the nation would be able to refuse medical service to anyone based on race, sexual orientation, religion, sex, ethnicity or any other factor that they claim conflicts with their personal conscience.

That health care providers have permission to refuse to help others poses concerns not only for the health of society at large, but also for the value and weight of the oath that those in the medical profession have agreed to uphold.

Such a proposal means providers who accept the federally funded Medi-Cal and Medicare (except those under Part B of the program) as forms of payment can also refuse service to patients ““ patients who rely on such physicians because they would not be able to afford medical care otherwise. Thus, those with financial difficulties are left with little to no options. Furthermore, if a form of service is deemed immoral to the particular provider in question, that provider can also refuse to recommend the patient to another physician or location that would perform the procedure.

Politicians such as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have protested this proposal. They claim it is another one of Bush’s conservative antics to restrict abortion disguised as a method of informing, educating and protecting the rights of providers from performing actions that contradict their beliefs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 98 percent of women of reproductive age have used contraceptives. Should such a law go into effect, these women could be denied the use of and education concerning the use of such products.

Regardless of the possible underlying intentions of the proposal, patients who have been refused service will only become more ill, forming an ailing society unable to care for families or work, and it will exacerbate an already declining economy. This proposal has the potential to lead to the deterioration of society, not only in terms of its health, but also with regards to the lack of the moral responsibility physicians and others who enter the medical profession have promised to uphold.

In addition to the dilemmas it could pose in the long run, the proposed law contradicts the very definition of what a law is. A law is a standardized code, but they are using a term that, by definition, is virtually paradoxical to standardize. The term “conscience” is a personal, case-by-case belief system that cannot be fully defined to include every possible situation that may arise under the provision. So this proposal does more to provide an excuse to refuse to help someone based on prejudicial reasons under the broad implications of “conscience” than it does to protect the needs of those whose lives depend on medical services.

If this rule is meant to protect providers, what laws are being put in place to protect patients? Since this proposal also applies to those in training for medical professions, even students can refuse the right to help patients while they are doing their residency. I sincerely doubt that the doctors and the deans of medical schools, such as those at our very own prestigious hospital, would instill such morals into the students they train.

If you have been denied medical assistance due to a provider’s moral conflicts, e-mail Tehrani at ntehrani@media.ucla.edu with your views on the new proposal. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *