Federal provider conscience regulation: unconscionable.
This paper argues that the provider conscience regulation recently put into place in the USA is misguided. The rule is too broad in the scope of protection it affords, and its conception of what constitutes assistance in the performance of an objectionable procedure reveals that it is unworkable in practice. Furthermore, the regulation wrongly treats refusal of other reproductive services as on a par with conscientious objection to participation in abortion. Finally, the rule allows providers to refuse even to discuss "objectionable" options with patients and serves to protect discriminatory refusals of medical care. For all of these reasons, this regulation is unwise.
Card
R
R
SUNY/University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. robert_card@urmc.rochester.edu
D000029:Abortion, Legal / Q000941:ethics*; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003242:Conscience; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004995:Ethics, Professional; D005260:Female; D006291:Health Policy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D013245:Sterilization, Reproductive / Q000941:ethics*; D014481:United States