rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 2, 2009 9:45:54 GMT -7
In another parting shot at low-income women from across the country, the Bush administration just tweaked the last minute regulations
this came from one of my favorite blogs; additional information follows:
Last Minute Bush Regulations Take a Parting Shot at Health Care for Women December 19th, 2008 by Femina
The Bush Administration issued final regulations that will dramatically change women’s health care. These regulations will enable health care professionals, organizations, pharmacists and insurance companies to refuse to provide health care services, information or referrals based on moral or religious reasons.
“With these regulations, the Bush Administration is allowing ideology to trump good health care,” said Dorothy Mann, Executive Director, Family Planning Council. “President Bush has waited until the very last month of his Presidency to take draconian and unnecessary measures that will profoundly change health care for women,” Mann added.
The regulations interpret three Federal laws that give individuals and institutions, which receive Federal funding, the ability to refuse to provide any type of service related to abortion for moral or religious reasons. This can include the provision of certain methods of birth control that are mistakenly considered abortifacients including IUDs and emergency contraception.
“The scope of these regulations are astonishing. Institutions and individuals in every community will be able to refuse to provide contraception because they mistakenly believe that certain methods of birth control cause abortion,” Mann declared. “The Bush Administration has determined that the availability of family planning services could depend solely on the individual whims and ideology of any health care provider,” Mann added.
As written, the regulations may override various state laws or regulations regarding contraception. In Pennsylvania, these regulations would, in all likelihood, invalidate recently issued state regulations governing the provision of emergency contraception to rape victims in hospital emergency rooms.
The regulations issued today were the subject a nationwide response with over 200,000 comments sent in opposition. “Protections already exist that carefully balance the rights of employees to religious liberty and we have every expectation that President Obama and Secretary Daschle will work quickly to rescind these regulations,” Mann said.
The Family Planning Council is a private, non-profit organization. It funds 28 local health care organizations including the region’s top teaching hospitals, community health centers, Planned Parenthood affiliates and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. These agencies provide high quality, comprehensive family planning services throughout the five county Philadelphia. Last year, 145,000 low-income women, men and adolescents were served through this network.
Source: Family Planning Council
These last minute changes in health care policy will have a devastating effect on women from across socio-economic spectrum, but will impact the poor and disenfranchised to a degree that is unimaginable.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 2, 2009 9:50:27 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jan 2, 2009 13:12:12 GMT -7
You mean the Hippocratic Oath that says "do no harm?"
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 2, 2009 13:55:56 GMT -7
Something like that. This article (from Wiki) and abridged oath history, pertains to the medical profession. I would hold that this applies to mental health professionals too:
The Declaration of Geneva was adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association at Geneva in 1948 and amended in 1968, 1984, 1994, 2005 and 2006. It is a declaration of physicians' dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in Nazi Germany. The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision [1] of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath's moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.[2]
The original Declaration of Geneva reads:
At the time of being admitted as a Member of the medical profession I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity : I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due; I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity; The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration; I will respect the secrets which are confided in me; I will maintain by all means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession; My colleagues will be my brothers I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.
The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads:
At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession: I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due; I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity; The health of my patient will be my first consideration; I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died; I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession; My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers; I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life; I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat; I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.
Discussion follows: The amendments to the Declaration have been criticised as "imping[ing] on the inviolability of human life" because, for example, the original made "health and life" the doctor's "first consideration" whereas the amended version removes the words "and life", and the original required respect for human life "from the time of its conception" which was changed to "from its beginning" in 1984 and deleted in 2005.[4] These changes have been criticised as straying from the Hippocratic tradition and as a deviation from the post Nuremberg concern of lack of respect for human life. [5]
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 2, 2009 13:59:40 GMT -7
I would put it simply at this: As a medical professional, your duty is to your patient, not to yourself. If you cannot heal or help, then at the very least, do no harm
if you put your religious or political beliefs before the best interests of your patient, then you are causing harm to someone who has sought your help. You are not doing your job.
if you cannot, in good conscience do your job, then you must take responsible action and refer that patient to someone who can act in her best interest
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jan 2, 2009 18:13:00 GMT -7
I would put it simply at this: As a medical professional, your duty is to your patient, not to yourself. If you cannot heal or help, then at the very least, do no harmif you put your religious or political beliefs before the best interests of your patient, then you are causing harm to someone who has sought your help. You are not doing your job. if you cannot, in good conscience do your job, then you must take responsible action and refer that patient to someone who can act in her best interest Seems to me the idea of what's in the "best interest of the patient" is where the conflict will mainly lie as it's pretty subjective. Now as far as a patient's decisions about legal medical options, I will agree that they should be respected and if doing so would violate a health-care workers beliefs, the patient should be referred elsewhere. I don't believe, however, that someone, by virtue of working in the health care industry, should be forced to abandon deeply held religious/moral beliefs.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 2, 2009 18:56:15 GMT -7
medical personnel are not allowed subjective judgement; they are trained and obligated to leave their personal values at home. Those who choose not to abide by this professional standard risk harming their patients and their careers.
I don't believe, that by virtue of working in the health care industry, someone should be forced to abandon deeply held beliefs either...which again, is why if they are unable to do so, they must either work to resolve these conflilcts so that they can do their jobs, or find work that is more aligned with the beliefs they feel they are unable to distinguish from their work
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jan 2, 2009 19:01:11 GMT -7
medical personnel are not allowed subjective judgement; they are trained and obligated to leave their personal values at home. Those who choose not to abide by this professional standard risk harming their patients and their careers. I don't believe, that by virtue of working in the health care industry, someone should be forced to abandon deeply held beliefs either...which again, is why if they are unable to do so, they must either work to resolve these conflilcts so that they can do their jobs, or find work that is more aligned with the beliefs they feel they are unable to distinguish from their work So submit or quit, eh? Should doctors be required to perform abortions ('cause lots don't on religious grounds and, so far, that's okay)?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 2, 2009 19:17:00 GMT -7
but in the larger scheme of things, such elective procedures are performed by doctors who are able to do this, precisely because there are those who object to doing so
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, couselors, all who find it morally objectionable to treat those who seek services they refuse to provide should refer. What Bush has done is make it easier to subject their patients to beliefs rather than refer, and that is, to me, morally and professionally reprehensible.
I don't see it as "submit or quit"--again, that's where the referral process should kick in. What the Bush Administration has attempted to do is limit access to a wide variety of health care services along the spectrum of service delivery
from information and referral to access to and then service delivery itself. Women who have access to such resources can still obtain them--so if they want abortions, they will still obtain them.
Women and girls who don't have access to accurate information or responsible service delivery regarding their sexual health are in a far more precarious position, and this situation should be rectified immediately by President Obama
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jan 2, 2009 22:10:48 GMT -7
I'm sure it will be. Personally I'm more looking forward to not having to worry about my house and gas payments. ;D Anyway, Rosa, I won't try to speak for the current president because I've learned that trying to convince folks that he's anything other than evil is, well, futile.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 21, 2009 5:54:23 GMT -7
White House stops pending Bush regulations for review Tue Jan 20, 7:25 pm ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's new administration ordered all federal agencies and departments on Tuesday to stop any pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff, halting last-minute Bush orders in their tracks.
"This afternoon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel signed a memorandum sent to all agencies and departments to stop all pending regulations until a legal and policy review can be conducted by the Obama administration," the White House said in a statement issued just hours after Obama took office.
The review is a tool commonly used by a new administration to delay so-called "midnight regulations" put in place by a former president between the election and Inauguration Day.
Midnight regulations have been heavily used by recent former presidents, including the Democrat Bill Clinton, Republican George H. W. Bush, and most recently, the Republican George W. Bush.
Controversial late rules by the outgoing Bush administration include allowing the carrying of concealed weapons in some national parks and prohibiting medical facilities from receiving federal money for discriminating against doctors and nurses who refuse to assist with abortions or dispense contraceptives based on religious grounds.
Federal law requires a 60-day waiting period before any major regulatory changes become law, so some presidents try to publish new major regulations to ensure they go into effect before the new president's inauguration on January 20.
(Reporting by Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by Patricia Zengerle)
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jan 21, 2009 6:45:30 GMT -7
Good move by Obama. "Midnight Regulations" should not be even initiated. Anything worth doing ought to be done in the light of day with all appropriate study and debate.
Obama is the new President, he needs to put his stamp on things within the bounds allowed by our system of government
|
|