R.I.P. Hippocratic Oath, B.C.400-2008

Get a load of this bullshit, it's outrageous:

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

I don't know about you, but that scares the shit out of me. Perhaps it's one last "Fuck you" from the Bush administration as they leave office.

First of all, this would completely undermine the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath. Let me site one passage specifically:

To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority.

That passage encapsulates the meaning of the modern Hippocratic Oath. Aren't doctors supposed to put the interests of their patients first? Before payment, pressure from their community or family, anything? This outrageous "Right of Conscience" horseshit would completely undermine a patient's right to receive treatment, essentially sending the "put the good of the patient first" idea down the toilet.

Secondly, this is essentially forcing the religious beliefs of the doctor onto the patient. Random religious asshats comment:

Proponents, including the Christian Medical Assn. and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens, president of CMA.

"The real battle line is the morning-after pill," he said. "This prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity. Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a moral objection to."

Hmm, let's think about that one for a while. What this bill is actually doing is forcing to the patient's to succumb to the religious beliefs of the doctor - which may defy the best course of medical action at the time (and it could be urgent). Consider this scenario. Say a 14 year old gets crazy (and I mean CRAZY) at a party, and gets knocked up. When she goes to her doctor the next day, she is denied the morning after pill on the grounds that the Christian doctor refuses, as he is morally against it. Now, because of the fact that the doctor is morally against it (due only for religious reasons), even when medically there was no harm, (AND it was the best possible course of action at the time), the girl gets pregnant, and her life is ruined, as she is completely unready to have a child.

Okay, that may not be the most likely scenario, but it could happen under this new act. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood are already fighting against it. Above all, this is one last dirty attempt to try to please social conservatives. This is politicizing women's health. The health of the patient must come first.

The potential implications of this act are harrowing. A patient would be denied not only an abortion, simply because the doctor is against (usually for religious reasons), but also such acts as artificial insemination. Hell, the doctor could even reject essential treatments such as blood transfusions on religious grounds. Lesbian couples would be denied artificial insemination. Furthermore, as stated in the article, this could re-open the abortion debate for the Obama administration. With the current state of the world and our economy, that's the last thing they need on their plate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conscience2-2008dec02,0,7013690.story