New conscience protections are disingenuous

A recent letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from AFT President Randi Weingarten spoke against proposed rule changes regarding the ability of the Office for Civil Rights to impose new procedures to enforce existing laws concerning the rights of health professionals to participate in certain medical procedures.

I thank Randi for her advocacy on healthcare issues because this proposed rule is offered under the false pretense that it protects a healthcare worker from having to participate in a procedure based on his or her religious or ethical beliefs.

Although originally founded as a teachers union, the AFT now represents public service workers and healthcare professionals too. In fact, the AFT is the second-largest representative of registered nurses in the country. As such, we embrace our duty to advocate for all healthcare workers and our patients.

When I first heard about the proposed rule, it sounded like a reasonable protection for healthcare workers. But, when I read the rule, I realized it would not only allow the Civil Rights Division to respond to complaints from healthcare workers, it could also interfere with the rights of patients to receive care.

You see, under current law, healthcare workers are already protected from being forced into participating in any procedure they object to, based on religious beliefs or concerns of conscience.

So why the proposed rule change?

Could it be because under the new rule, healthcare providers would have the right to refuse to treat a patient, not based on the procedure, but based on the patient’s income, race, ethnicity, gender, background, political or religious beliefs, sexual identity, or almost anything? The new rule would also extend these rights to healthcare institutions. These new rules are clearly an attempt to institutionalize discrimination based on who the patient is.

As a registered nurse, it’s my right — legally and ethically — to refuse to participate in certain procedures based on my beliefs. I do not need any new rules to guarantee me this right. I also have a moral obligation to provide care to every patient equally, and I have the same moral obligation to refer any patient to a provider who feels differently than I do, and who can provide them the care they seek.

Healthcare professionals, like everyone, have varying ethical beliefs when it comes to certain procedures. Some of us may object to performing or assisting in abortions, or administering vaccinations, or providing certain end-of-life care, or participating in lethal injections. I vigorously defend their right to object, and the rules as they stand now protect their rights as well.

However, there is no place in healthcare for a provider (or facility) to decide whether to participate or provide a procedure based on a person’s religion, politics, sexual orientation, race or legal status. This proposed rule is not only unnecessary in protecting healthcare workers’ right to practice according to their ethical beliefs, it is potentially harmful to the very patients we have dedicated our lives to care for.

This blog has been posted on AFT Voices at:
https://aftvoices.org/new-conscience-protections-are-disingenuous-e502d37f5d36