Over the last 50 years gay activist groups have organized to construct a social reorganization of America. Although a comprehensive survey of sexuality conducted in 1992 at the Unversity of Chicago documented that 2.8 percent of men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual and 1.4 percent of women defined themselves as lesbian or bisexual,(1) the gay culture, influenced by the civil rights and women's movements, rapidly influenced the American culture with gay liberation.
The movement to bring homosexual behavior into social acceptance is challenging every social institution with fundamental change, including the government and legal systems, educational systems, the professional health industry, corporations, religious organizations, and the institution of marriage and family, the media, and the military.
As the gay movements gained momentum, particularly in the media, the schools and churches, powerful counter-movements and organizations developed to challenge the changing expectations of sexual behavior as being personally and socially destructive. Battles ensured as groups within education and health systems, religious organizations and the military claimed adverse impacts on societal outcomes.
The normalization of homosexuality within society will create profound changes in social organization, especially in the areas of social integration, social reproduction, social health and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values. The social discourse has been rampant with charges of bigotry, homophobia and hate mongering. However, neither intimidation, tolerance nor back slapping love fests are appropriate means to bring about change in social behavior that has wide reaching consequences. These foundational social issues deserve serious and thorough consideration.
"The concept of externalities helps define situations that justify government intervention and identify appropriate policy solutions to the problem. Externalities exist when an individual's actions impose costs on or provide benefits to others who are not parties to the decision... This approach provides criteria for when government should act and the type of policies it should use...Positive externalities provide gains for society, while negative externalities produce losses..." (2)
In 2003, Melik Kaylan called for caution in discussing the growing changes in society. "Libertarians, now both on the left and right, say that relations between consenting adults should not be regulated if no participant is hurt, which includes the freedom to marry anyone you please. Here, there's no concern for the aggregate effect on society of cumulative individual choices...Gay marriage...alarms many Americans precisely because it contends blurry unknowable enormities. We will be, after all, the first society ever to pursue the experiment fully... What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage then to identify the cause?"(3)
REFERENCES
1.Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,1994.
2. Steinacker, Annette. "Externalities, Prospect Theory, and Social Construction: When Will Government Act, What Will Government Do?" Social Science Quarterly,Vol.87, No 3. September 2006:459-476.
3. Kaylan, Melik. "The Way We Live Now." The Wall Street Juornal. Fri. Aug. 8, 2003: Opinion Page.
Showing posts with label health care providers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care providers. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2010
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Speak Out To Protect Freedom of Conscience!
As budget and bailout concerns capture the news and the public attention, the Department of Health and Human Services is quietly making plans to throw out the conscience rules that protect medical workers who refuse to perform medical procedures contrary to their moral convictions. 1.
Following Roe v. Wade in 1973, state and federal conscience clauses were enacted to protect health care workers who didn't want to perform abortions. Subsequent protections developed to protect reluctant health care workers from participation in euthansia and assisted suicide.
THE PROVIDER REFUSAL RULE
In August of 2008, the Bush administration proposed legislation that was enacted into law on inauguration day of 2009. The Provider Refusal Rule strengthened protections for doctors, nurses and workers in health care settings who refuse to provide a medical service because of moral convictions.
This legislation also protects healthcare providers from being involved in additional procedures, like sex change operations and assisted suicide, as well as vaccinations and family planning, if they are morally opposed to the procedures.2.
Pharmacists would also be protected from refusing to prescribe medicine, including the morning-after pill, if they opposed the prescription on moral grounds.
This bill does not violate the ability of a person seeking services to receive them from another source, but protects the conscientious medical decisions of professionals who object to particular services.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO RESCIND THE 'CONSCIENCE RULE'.
At the end of February 2009, President Obama, furthering his support for abortion rights, announced plans to roll back the conscience rules, stoking battles between abortion and right-to-life supporters.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
However, Toni Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said "Protecting the right of all health-care professional's judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards...is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances. President Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual." 3.
COMMENTS ARE INVITED AND ENCOURAGED THROUGH APRIL 9, 2009.
Advocates on both sides, medical groups and the public are invited to contact the Department of Health and Human Services to make comments on this proposal through the first week of April to express their opinions about changes in the conscience clauses.
HISTORY OF MEDICAL CONSCIENCE
The Hippocratic Oath, which pertains to the ethical practice of medicine, has traditionally been taken by physicians and continues to be a sacred document among health care professionals.
"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion"... (from the Hippocratic Oath)
Hippocrates was a celebrated Greek physician in the 4th century BCE. Even then physicians were organized into a guild with regulations for training and a professional ideal of practice.
"CHURCH AMENDMENTS"
In the 1970's, conscience provisions contained in the Department of Health and Human Services directives collectively known as the 'Church Amendments' (42 U.S.C.&300a-7) were enacted in response to whether or not the receipt of federal funds required recipients to perform sterilizations or abortions.
Conscience provisions provide that:
* the receipt of government funds does not require that individuals or entities be involved in sterilization or abortion procedures if it would be contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions.
* Entities receiving funds (grants, contracts, loans), including biomedical research entities, are prohibited from discriminating against any physician or health care personnel who refused to perform a lawful sterilization or abortion procedure based on religious beliefs.
* Entities receiving funds are prohibited from discriminating against any applicant for training or study because of the applicant's reluctance to participate in counseling or assistance in abortions or sterilizations based on the applicant's religious beliefs or moral convictions.
CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF MEDICINE
When freedom of conscience is overruled by directives from govenment or a governing board, totalitarian regimes may command citizens to engage in atrocious behaviors in opposition to their own feelings of appropriate behavior.
THE NAZIFICATION OF MEDICINE
A tragic example was seen in Nazi Germany, where doctors were used to commit unspeakable horrors under the direction of the state.
Physicians were identified as 'servants of the state'. Personal responsibility for decisions was taken away from individual doctors and nurses. 4.
The overarching Nazi biomedical vision involved medicalized killing, killing in the name of healing for the good of the 'Volk'. Sterilization, mercy killing, euthanasia and destroying 'life unworthy of life' were seen as responsible medical practices.
In a period of 7 years, the Nazi holocaust eradicated an estimated 21 million people, many of whom were killed by medical doctors who had no voice or choice but to obey the directives of the state or lose their license. Those killed included the handicapped, children, aged, sick, ethnic groups, conscientious objectors, and any critics who opposed the Nazi agenda. 5.
MEDICAL KILLING IN AMERICA
Since the enactment of Roe v. Wade in 1973, over 49,500,000 legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Since the legalization of abortion, the pressures not to abort have been replaced by a multitude of social pressures encouraging abortion. Increasingly, accounts of research studies related to abortion and stress report that in many cases the choice to abort was not made by the woman but was forced upon her by husbands, parents, doctors, counselors, or friends. 6.
In 1994, Oregon voters approved a bill permitting terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request and self-administer lethal doses of medicine. On March 5,2009, Washington State became the second state to approve this initiative, called the Death With Dignity Act.
Opponents of the bill contend that 'assisted suicide' is a more accurate description of this legislation. Kenneth Stevens, a Portland, Oregon radiation oncolgist said assisted suicide "is a reversal of the historic role of physicians as healers, as comforters, as counselors." 7.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE IS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
The ability to act on personal and moral conscience is the foundation of our liberty and freedom. The right of individuals to speak up and act on the basis of their individual sense of moral rightness provides the checks and balances that protect us from the tyranny of totalitarian dictatorship.
The Obama administration is concerned that the Bush regulations could put in jeopardy family planning services and counseling for vaccines. The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision.
Responsible citizenship requires that we speak out to make our concerns heard.
REFERENCES
1. Lewey, Noam. N. February 27, 2009."Obama administration may rescind 'conscience rule'.Washington Bureau. Chicagotribune.com.March 21, 2009.
2.Berger, Matthew. March 3, 2009. "Obama Plans to Rescind Healthcare 'Conscience Clause'. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11600261. 3/21/2009.
3. Young, Saundra. March, 19, 2009. "White House set to reverse health care conscience clause'". CNN.com. Campbell Brown: No Bias. No Bull.
4.Lifton, Robert Jay. 2000. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Basic Books
5. Rummel, R. J. 1992. Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Pub. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM.
6. Basu, Alaka Malwade(ed.) 2003. The Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Abortion:Global Perspective.Chapter 14.The Social Pressure to Abort. Praeger Pub.
7. Allen, Marshall. August, 2004. "Death Wishes". Christianity Today. Vol.48, No.8,page 24.
Following Roe v. Wade in 1973, state and federal conscience clauses were enacted to protect health care workers who didn't want to perform abortions. Subsequent protections developed to protect reluctant health care workers from participation in euthansia and assisted suicide.
THE PROVIDER REFUSAL RULE
In August of 2008, the Bush administration proposed legislation that was enacted into law on inauguration day of 2009. The Provider Refusal Rule strengthened protections for doctors, nurses and workers in health care settings who refuse to provide a medical service because of moral convictions.
This legislation also protects healthcare providers from being involved in additional procedures, like sex change operations and assisted suicide, as well as vaccinations and family planning, if they are morally opposed to the procedures.2.
Pharmacists would also be protected from refusing to prescribe medicine, including the morning-after pill, if they opposed the prescription on moral grounds.
This bill does not violate the ability of a person seeking services to receive them from another source, but protects the conscientious medical decisions of professionals who object to particular services.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO RESCIND THE 'CONSCIENCE RULE'.
At the end of February 2009, President Obama, furthering his support for abortion rights, announced plans to roll back the conscience rules, stoking battles between abortion and right-to-life supporters.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
However, Toni Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said "Protecting the right of all health-care professional's judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards...is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances. President Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual." 3.
COMMENTS ARE INVITED AND ENCOURAGED THROUGH APRIL 9, 2009.
Advocates on both sides, medical groups and the public are invited to contact the Department of Health and Human Services to make comments on this proposal through the first week of April to express their opinions about changes in the conscience clauses.
HISTORY OF MEDICAL CONSCIENCE
The Hippocratic Oath, which pertains to the ethical practice of medicine, has traditionally been taken by physicians and continues to be a sacred document among health care professionals.
"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion"... (from the Hippocratic Oath)
Hippocrates was a celebrated Greek physician in the 4th century BCE. Even then physicians were organized into a guild with regulations for training and a professional ideal of practice.
"CHURCH AMENDMENTS"
In the 1970's, conscience provisions contained in the Department of Health and Human Services directives collectively known as the 'Church Amendments' (42 U.S.C.&300a-7) were enacted in response to whether or not the receipt of federal funds required recipients to perform sterilizations or abortions.
Conscience provisions provide that:
* the receipt of government funds does not require that individuals or entities be involved in sterilization or abortion procedures if it would be contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions.
* Entities receiving funds (grants, contracts, loans), including biomedical research entities, are prohibited from discriminating against any physician or health care personnel who refused to perform a lawful sterilization or abortion procedure based on religious beliefs.
* Entities receiving funds are prohibited from discriminating against any applicant for training or study because of the applicant's reluctance to participate in counseling or assistance in abortions or sterilizations based on the applicant's religious beliefs or moral convictions.
CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF MEDICINE
When freedom of conscience is overruled by directives from govenment or a governing board, totalitarian regimes may command citizens to engage in atrocious behaviors in opposition to their own feelings of appropriate behavior.
THE NAZIFICATION OF MEDICINE
A tragic example was seen in Nazi Germany, where doctors were used to commit unspeakable horrors under the direction of the state.
Physicians were identified as 'servants of the state'. Personal responsibility for decisions was taken away from individual doctors and nurses. 4.
The overarching Nazi biomedical vision involved medicalized killing, killing in the name of healing for the good of the 'Volk'. Sterilization, mercy killing, euthanasia and destroying 'life unworthy of life' were seen as responsible medical practices.
In a period of 7 years, the Nazi holocaust eradicated an estimated 21 million people, many of whom were killed by medical doctors who had no voice or choice but to obey the directives of the state or lose their license. Those killed included the handicapped, children, aged, sick, ethnic groups, conscientious objectors, and any critics who opposed the Nazi agenda. 5.
MEDICAL KILLING IN AMERICA
Since the enactment of Roe v. Wade in 1973, over 49,500,000 legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Since the legalization of abortion, the pressures not to abort have been replaced by a multitude of social pressures encouraging abortion. Increasingly, accounts of research studies related to abortion and stress report that in many cases the choice to abort was not made by the woman but was forced upon her by husbands, parents, doctors, counselors, or friends. 6.
In 1994, Oregon voters approved a bill permitting terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request and self-administer lethal doses of medicine. On March 5,2009, Washington State became the second state to approve this initiative, called the Death With Dignity Act.
Opponents of the bill contend that 'assisted suicide' is a more accurate description of this legislation. Kenneth Stevens, a Portland, Oregon radiation oncolgist said assisted suicide "is a reversal of the historic role of physicians as healers, as comforters, as counselors." 7.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE IS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
The ability to act on personal and moral conscience is the foundation of our liberty and freedom. The right of individuals to speak up and act on the basis of their individual sense of moral rightness provides the checks and balances that protect us from the tyranny of totalitarian dictatorship.
The Obama administration is concerned that the Bush regulations could put in jeopardy family planning services and counseling for vaccines. The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision.
Responsible citizenship requires that we speak out to make our concerns heard.
REFERENCES
1. Lewey, Noam. N. February 27, 2009."Obama administration may rescind 'conscience rule'.Washington Bureau. Chicagotribune.com.March 21, 2009.
2.Berger, Matthew. March 3, 2009. "Obama Plans to Rescind Healthcare 'Conscience Clause'. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11600261. 3/21/2009.
3. Young, Saundra. March, 19, 2009. "White House set to reverse health care conscience clause'". CNN.com. Campbell Brown: No Bias. No Bull.
4.Lifton, Robert Jay. 2000. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. Basic Books
5. Rummel, R. J. 1992. Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Pub. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM.
6. Basu, Alaka Malwade(ed.) 2003. The Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Abortion:Global Perspective.Chapter 14.The Social Pressure to Abort. Praeger Pub.
7. Allen, Marshall. August, 2004. "Death Wishes". Christianity Today. Vol.48, No.8,page 24.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
