Comments on: Is freedom of conscience at risk? http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0053 from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:47:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Debbie Cowden MD http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0053#comment-1748 Debbie Cowden MD Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:11:08 +0000 http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/?p=53#comment-1748 The dept of HHS is proposing a regulation to protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions or other procedures which violate their conscience. They are doing this in response to an ACOG initiative. ACOG is proposing a requirement that residents (and eventually presumably attending physicians) not be able to be Boarded as OB/GYNs unless they have performed abortions. For now, they seek to make it a requirement to graduate from an ObGyn residency. The head of the dept of HHS is quick to point out that there ARE ALREADY at least 3 federal laws passed by our congress that protect the right of conscience for physicians. This proposed HHS rule is publicly linking the denial of federal funds to groups seeking to limit a physician's right of conscience, based on the currently existing laws. If I understand what he wrote correctly, the head of HHS is publishing notice that federal funding already can be removed from entities that pass Board Certification rules (or state licensing rules) that attempt to force a doctor to perform procedures that violate his or her conscience. The dept of HHS contends that an individual specialty, or group of doctors who happen to be "in power" does not have the right to force physicians l to violate their conscience as a condition of being licnesed or board certified. HHS based that opinion on already existing federal laws. Particularly of concern are medical students and residents who are NOT in a position of power. They can be denied the right to practice in the specialty they have chosen, after numerous years of residency if for example, ACOG were to change the existing requirements to insist that they perform abortions. (ACOG does not after all, require its members to continue to deliver babies throughout their careers). One of the duties of the federal government is to protect its citizens. So far at least, we as physicians are still considered citizens. If the leaders of ACOG were to succeed in their attempt to "force" physicians in training to perform abortions, that would just be the first step to forcing other things. As Dr. Shane Macaulay (the first posting above) states, the next thing might be to require physicians to kill their patients (euthanasia). If we allow the rights of some physicians' consciences to be violated, where does it stop? This HHS regulation is not "the Bush Administration" "perpetrating something" on America. I think it is a notification to ACOG and other groups which seek to misuse their power to make THEIR view of right and wrong the "law" that they will be violating three or more already existing laws. That violation of federal law will rightly cost them and their institutions or corporations all their federal funding. (Why should we as taxpayers reward someone who breaks the law with federal money?) Our existing laws already protect us as physicians, so far. But just as we need to fight "sham peer review" we need to fight for our right to follow our conscience, and for the rights of other physicians (who may be more conservative than we are) to not have to violate their consciences, as well. The dept of HHS is proposing a regulation to protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions or other procedures which violate their conscience. They are doing this in response to an ACOG initiative. ACOG is proposing a requirement that residents (and eventually presumably attending physicians) not be able to be Boarded as OB/GYNs unless they have performed abortions. For now, they seek to make it a requirement to graduate from an ObGyn residency.

The head of the dept of HHS is quick to point out that there ARE ALREADY at least 3 federal laws passed by our congress that protect the right of conscience for physicians. This proposed HHS rule is publicly linking the denial of federal funds to groups seeking to limit a physician’s right of conscience, based on the currently existing laws. If I understand what he wrote correctly, the head of HHS is publishing notice that federal funding already can be removed from entities that pass Board Certification rules (or state licensing rules) that attempt to force a doctor to perform procedures that violate his or her conscience.

The dept of HHS contends that an individual specialty, or group of doctors who happen to be “in power” does not have the right to force physicians l to violate their conscience as a condition of being licnesed or board certified. HHS based that opinion on already existing federal laws.

Particularly of concern are medical students and residents who are NOT in a position of power. They can be denied the right to practice in the specialty they have chosen, after numerous years of residency if for example, ACOG were to change the existing requirements to insist that they perform abortions. (ACOG does not after all, require its members to continue to deliver babies throughout their careers).

One of the duties of the federal government is to protect its citizens. So far at least, we as physicians are still considered citizens. If the leaders of ACOG were to succeed in their attempt to “force” physicians in training to perform abortions, that would just be the first step to forcing other things.

As Dr. Shane Macaulay (the first posting above) states, the next thing might be to require physicians to kill their patients (euthanasia). If we allow the rights of some physicians’ consciences to be violated, where does it stop?

This HHS regulation is not “the Bush Administration” “perpetrating something” on America. I think it is a notification to ACOG and other groups which seek to misuse their power to make THEIR view of right and wrong the “law” that they will be violating three or more already existing laws. That violation of federal law will rightly cost them and their institutions or corporations all their federal funding. (Why should we as taxpayers reward someone who breaks the law with federal money?)

Our existing laws already protect us as physicians, so far. But just as we need to fight “sham peer review” we need to fight for our right to follow our conscience, and for the rights of other physicians (who may be more conservative than we are) to not have to violate their consciences, as well.

]]>