Obama administration may rescind ‘conscience rule’ 

Officials say the move seeks to clarify rules for health care workers
By Noam N. Levey | Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the “conscience rule” comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

Some will be upset over Obama’s position here.  But, in my opinion, it is completely correct for a couple reasons.

1. Doctors are not forced to provide procedures they disagree with, yet only make it known to their patients that the procedure is an option.  In areas unique from abortion you would be quite thankful that your doctor is obligated to provide you with all your options.  For example, this allows you to know that refusing treatment is an option for terminal illness.  For 30 years, doctors have been protected from performing procedures against their will.  President Obama is supportive of that protection.  But performing a procedure and giving advice of options are quite different things.

2. The suggestion that this is government overstepping on personal morality is completely false.  Think of the number of positions lawyers find themselves in that seemingly go against their “conscience.”  If an attorney could simply follow his or her “conscience” it is doubtful attorney-client privilege would exist.  How would a “conscience rule” apply to other legally “privileged” areas like the confessional booth or psychologist’s office?

3. The “conscience rule,” in the Bush mode, is not simply about contraceptives.  Yes, that was the main target.  But, the rule had broad-standing legal obligations for many medical areas.  It is simple-minded to view the order through the contraceptives frame, and that is likely why the courts would have struck it down anyway.  The AMA and Methodist Church have both criticized the broadness of the Bush rule.  Abortion has long been covered by a ‘conscience rule,’ but the Bush Admin – in targeting contraceptives – actually created a rule way beyond that purview.

4. The rule was ethically irresponsible because it suggests that the moral burden for personal health decision-making lies with the doctor.  Decision-making is not what makes the medical profession a moral task – care giving is.  When doctors assume the ethical choices of their patients they are no longer care-givers.  It is no kind of care to deny one’s ability to control your own life.  The ability to make your own choices, in fact, is the very sort of love God granted us within the Christian tradition.

5. Leaving your medical care to the luck-of-the-draw in terms of your doctor’s religious beliefs is ridiculous – especially if the doctor does not have to make her beliefs known when denying the fullness of available care.  The “conscience rule” sounds good to those prideful enough to think everyone shares their morality.  But, what if your doctor is from a tradition which denies all medical care?  Should he or she be able to deny all medical treatment?  Is that even a doctor?

The “conscience rule” sounds good on a simple level.  I was even initially attracted to it.  From a basic standpoint, we do not want people to be forced to act against their consciences.  But, upon further reflection, this rule is morally ill-conceived.  Sure, we have allowed a ‘conscientious objectors’ caveat for military service.  But once you’ve joined the military, you’re expected to be a soldier.  Same goes for doctors, lawyers, pastors, police officers, etc.  It would be quite dangerous if in the day-to-day practice of being soldiers, lawyers, or police officers, individuals were navigating issues like pacifism, client-privilege, or the death penalty.  We don’t want our soldiers to quit fighting under the guise of pacifism.  We don’t want our attorneys to give up their clients in a choice for full disclosure, or our police not to arrest a suspected murderer because he or she may be executed.  In all of these careers, like the medical profession, morality ought to be seen in the calling to the task at hand.  Setting aside the fact the the doctor does not even have to “provide,” yet simply make known the option of a treatment, the act of conscience for a Doctor is in providing the best and fullest care available – not in the momentary choosing for the patient the sort of health-care the doctor is most comfortable with.

I congratulate the Obama Administration for turning their back on this morally prideful, divisive, illegal, and ill-conceived attempt at governance by the Bush Administration.  Bush snuck this in at the midnight hour.  The Obama HHS office is calling for reflective consideration in the light of day.