How far can religious beliefs be used to undermine patient care? Can a doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness refuse to give a patient a blood transfusion?

I am a vegetarian, but when I was a waitress, I still served steak to any patron who ordered it. That's the job.

That's what i want to know, DJSeeker. Why this particular conscientious objection; why this particular field? Under this regulation, a pharmacist who refuses to do part of his job will have more job security than someone in another field who performs all required aspects of his or her job. Crazy.

Good questions, both.

And the answer is that this regulation has nothing at all to do with discrimination or with sparing the consciences of certain medical practitioners.

It has to do with restricting abortion and contraception. Roe and Griswald preclude an outright ban for the time being (I believe they are likely to be overturned--certainly if McCain wins the election). Leavitt's regulation is part of a widespread campaign to restrict abortion and contraception bit by bit, without actually running afoul of Roe. (Leavitt, like the Catholic church, sees no significant moral distinction between the two.)

The courts have provided increasing lattitude for such measures. For example, it is now consitutionally OK for legislatures to impose extra burdens on abortion providers. States are now pressing forward to see just how much extra burden will pass consitutional muster. My guess is: quite a lot.

lloyd, I don't think your contention that there is no significant moral distinction between contraception and abortion in the view of the RCC is correct. The distinction is that BCPs can prevent implantation, by the tertiary mechanism of thinning the uterine lining, and that this is seen as the intentional ending of a life. That is seen as different in kind and degree as opposed to barrier methods like a condom. I understand that not everyone accepts that distinction, and that as a practical matter it is difficult if not impossible to demonstrate that effect; rather, it is a conclusion drawn from how BCPs are known to act and the existence of breakthrough ovulation (or else BCPs would not have a failure rate). I agree that the basis, i.e. a right to privacy, in the legal sense is the same.

NFP Guy, you just proved that lloyd is correct that the Catholic Church sees contraception and abortion as one and the same. Surely by 'contraception' lloyd was referring to BCP's. We are all well aware of the teeny tiny sliver of a chance that a BCP will stop the implantation of a fertilized egg. Maybe. That's been repeated (by you and others) on these boards ad nauseum. i find it curious that you don't refute his argument that this proposed regulation is a thinly disguised attempt to begin the process of banning oral contraceptives.

Good morning b0nny. Contraception emcompasses more than just BCPs. I submit there is a distinction between a substance that can end a life and one that does not. That is why there is a fuss over this at all.

As to refutation of his argument, I did not refute it because I do not know if that's true or not (i.e., pretext to banning contraception). I agreed that the legal underpinning seems to be the same to me. RCC has been against both all along, so I do not think it's position is 'disguised' at all, nor do I think the RCC has any influence on this proposed reg. As to whether fundamentalist/evangelical protestants agree with RCC position in any significant number, I don't know.

Honestly, b0nny, I try to be very precise in terms of what can and cannot be demonstrated with respect to BCPs' effects, and the last time we had a full go-round about this, I told you that, at the present time, I do not think legislation to ban BCPs is a prudent course; rather, it is a matter of persuasion. The visceral reactions here and on other Slate boards have reinforced that view. I reserve the right to change my mind, of course, depending on what evidence is available.

BTW, I agree that the pharmacy employer, at least, should be able to fire its noncompliant employee pharmacist; again, that's why there is a question about legislation for a conscience clause as an exception to the general rule. At first I was pretty strongly in favor of such protection, but at present I am a little on the fence. What do you think about the sole proprietor pharmacist, in a rural area (i.e., only one around) declining to offer BCPs? A libertarian view would seem to me to indicate that you would be OK with that.

"NFP Guy, you just proved that lloyd is correct that the Catholic Church sees contraception and abortion as one and the same."

ANYONE who is Catholic can tell you that the Catholic Church does see abortion and birth control - particularly the pill - as the same thing. In fact Pope Paul VI called the pill a form of genocide. I think this belief that this legislation is out to ban birth control pills is ridiculous. It's about pandering to the religious right. Republicans KNOW they'll never ban anything; therefore they need to make token gestures like protecting religious pharmacists from those "evil liberals who would force them to participate in abortions" so they can say "hey, we're still on your side!" No one wants to ban birth control pills. Let me repeat this: NO ONE WANTS TO BAN BIRTH CONTROL PILLS! You guys are making a mountain out of a pimple.

"Why this particular conscientious objection; why this particular field?"

The answer: Plan B. Is it birth control, or an abortion? Not an easy question to answer, is it? I can see it as something of an abortion, since I believe life begins at conception. (Yes, I'm pro-life and reject all those "no one knows when life begins" arguments used by pro-choicers.) Someone wants to know if a Jehovah's Witness would be able to get out of doing a blood transfusion. The answer is I doubt someone with such an issue would have made it through medical school to begin with. However, Plan B is very new and many pharmacists were practicing before it came out. But honestly, there has always been a concientious objection allowed in medical fields. No doctor is required to do any kind of elective abortion. In fact, no doctor can be required to participate in a state execution using lethal injection. States that require the presence of a doctor at these executions often have problems finding anyone who wants to participate. And the participation in the taking of a human life has alot more moral implication than bringing someone their steak dinner, so I think that's a poor comparison. For the record, I agree with Salaten. The employer should have the right to fire them.

The answer: Plan B. Is it birth control, or an abortion? Not an easy question to answer, is it?

Yes. It's birth control. It's designed to be a last-ditch effort to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, I'm pro-life and reject all those "no one knows when life begins" arguments used by pro-choicers.

Ok, well I reject the view that a fertilized egg floating around in a uterus is a human being. So we're even.

You missed the point of my first question, which you quoted above. Acording to Leavitt, this regulation is not about birth control or abortion, it's supposedly about protecting conscientious objectors. If that's true, then why such a narrow scope of coverage? There are an infinite number of things one could object to, in any number of jobs I can think of. It clearly is about abortion and birth control, and there must be a reason for that.

Hi NFP Guy, I can't help but notice we're all in agreement about government intervention on this thread, despite coming at the issues from very different angles. I think that's pretty good evidence that the proposed regulations are a bad idea.

As a libertarian, the rural pharmacist issue is a tough one for me. It's business vs the individual: the freedoms of the pharmacist to sell what he wants could definitely clash with what I feel is an individual's right to access legal, doctor-prescribed health care. I suppose that, if you are able to get a BCP prescription from a doctor, surely he or she could assist you in obtaining your pills if the local pharmacist won't comply. That is probably what someone would do if they could not get access to another prescribed medication, right? That's probably what i would do, after giving the pharmacist an earful. So begrudgingly, I have to side with the pharmacist's rights, even though I think he's wrong to withhold the pills in the first place. Either way, it's simply not practical to allow the government to control what private businesses sell.

Ripley, I am Catholic, and do think there is a difference between contraception like BCPs that can act as an abortifacient (with all the qualifiers I've stated in prior posts) and other forms of contraception like barrier methods or coitus interruptus; however, obviously the RCC sees any form of contraception as seriously contrary to how we've been created in the image and likeness of God and to our dignity as persons. The distinction is only significant in this context because of the discussion of a conscience clause as a possible exception to a general public policy of at-will employment.

NFP Guy,

You seem to have missed my point. I am not saying that *I* think birth control and abortion are morally equivalent.

I am saying that Leavitt and his ilk believe that abortion and birth control are morally equivalent. Moreover, they see them as morally equivalent to murder. Hence thier constant use of the word "holocaust".

You (and I) and others are, of course, free to draw other distinctions. But to them, this is just meaningless nitpicking.

And neither you nor I are drawing up regulations on this front.

The likes of Leavitt are.

Let's hope Obama wins in November....President Palin is, if anything, more fundamental on this issue than Bush or Leavitt.