Texas Medical Association goes over to Moloch...

Found this via LifeEthics.org This is from the Texas Medical Association website.

TMA, AMA, and state medical societies across the country support the Obama administration's plan to rescind a federal rule that prohibits recipients of federal funds from forcing physicians and other health care professionals to participate in actions they find religiously or morally objectionable.(So much for freedom of belief.)

In a letter to Acting Health and Human Services (HHS) Administrator Charles E. Johnson, the groups said the Conscience Rights of Health Care Providers regulation, adopted by the Bush administration in December, is unnecessary and could have far-reaching implications. They said it "could undermine patients' access to vital medical care and information, impede advances in biomedical research, and create confusion and uncertainty among physicians, other health care professionals, and health care institutions about their legal and ethical obligations to treat patients." (All of this over an "elective procedure" as I think abortion is termed, possible refusal to dispense abortion inducing drugs, or anything else associated with the culture of death.)

They wrote that they support "strong conscience protections" for physicians, residents, and medical students and other health professionals, especially when it comes to abortion. No physician, hospital, or hospital employee should be required to perform an act that violates good medical judgment or personally held moral principles. "However, while we support the legitimate conscience rights of individual health care professionals, the exercise of these rights must be balanced against the fundamental obligations of the medical profession and physicians' paramount responsibility and commitment to serving the needs of their patients. As advocates for our patients, we strongly support patients' access to comprehensive reproductive health care and freedom of communication between physicians and their patients, and oppose government interference in the practice of medicine or the use of health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population." (Translation; "Your beliefs will be grudingly tolerated as long as they don't get in anybody's way.")

Other points in the letter include:

Abortion education should be encouraged "so medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal, and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy …" The letter adds that "the observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in abortion should not be required." Resident training should include "specific educational standards for the knowledge and skills associated with pregnancy termination that allow an exclusion for individuals or residency programs with religious/moral objections or legal restrictions." (Uh-huh. Sounds like "trust me".)

Several provisions and definitions in the rule "are ambiguous, overly broad, and could lead to differing interpretations causing unnecessary confusion among health care institutions and professionals, thereby potentially impeding patients' access to needed health care services and information." The rule, for example, defines "health service program" as "any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded, in whole or in part" by HHS. "This definition inappropriately expands the scope of the conscience provisions beyond family planning and abortion services to include virtually any medical treatment or service, or biomedical and behavioral research," the letter says. (A straw man argument. Theres no reason it SHOULDN'T include any medical treatment or service, or biomedical and behavioral research. This is all about pushing abortion & contraception.)

The rule does not address how conscience rights of individuals and institutions apply in emergencies. (How many times would an abortion be required in an emergency? Slim to none I'd bet.)

The authors of this POS sound very pious and righteous in their anxiety over unspecified situations where the personal beliefs of a healthcare professional might affect the health of a patient. What would happen if a Muslim doctor refused to tend to a patient of the opposite sex because it went against their personal beliefs? My bet is there would be zippo consequences. It's all about the further forced acceptance of abotion in our society.