And medical care availability and discrimination.

I wasn't sure which section of the board to post this in- I was torn between general and political, chose general.

Article (related) follows (at bottom).

In a nut shell, the reproductive rights issue (abortion, contraceptives etc) is heavily linked to the health system in relation to ts patients... this is usually ignored, but important just the same.

The reproductive rights debate has evolved to a state of existance in which- for better or for worse- American legislation, court rulings and other such events have enabled American health care to do (and inversely... not do) certain things based on religious orientations.

In some areas and situations, doctors, pharmacies, nurses, surgeons and even institutions can refuse to write Rx's, fill Rx's or otherwise make unavailable medication that the individual/institution in question disagrees with for moral and/or religious reasons. Generally this is nationally thought of in terms of things like the morning after pill... but it does not need to be.

Aka these "professionals" can refuse to do their job, essentially discriminating against a given patient's needs and/or medical decisions and use this objection clause as an excuse- it need not be related to contraception and could be pretty much anything.... from birth control to hrt to things taken for cosmetic reasons (such as stuff aimed at preventing hairloss- after all its a drug that is going "against god's plans").

But beyond drug availability... this can also include procedures. Religiously linked health care institutions can now in many cases openly deny a procedure that will result in sterilization (which need not be done for birth control or GID...). For GG's think endometriosis where a patient may need to have their reproductive system (in part or in full) removed in order to end the pain that is preventing them from leading a functional life. For GBs... think various cancers where removal of the testes can improve chances of survival.

I have known GGs without kids that have had, prior to such changes in the American health system, Abrasive expierences while trying to get obgyn's, GPs et al to remove their uterus during bad endometriosis situations because the doctor(s) morally questioned the need to eliminate such discomfort for married women who were still young and "just needed to wait until after they were too old to have kids..."

By allowing such discrimination to not only occur, but occur openly and easily, it hurts certain patients by preventing immediate, needed or otherwise desired medical care (the issue should never be about the level of need- if someone has the right to have part of their body removed such as their uterus, it should be independent from how many children they have had, how much longer their biological clocks will be ticking or rather or not they are married).

One simply can not assume that if turned away from one doctor, a patient will have the means to go to another, and another, and another (until finding one that does not have such "moral" objections).. a patient getting an appointment to see a doctor about endometriosis pain is going to be charged for the appointment regardless rather or not the doctor agrees to procedures that result in sterilization. Likewise one can not assume that there is a doctor in the patient's area that will not have such moral objections... by allowing one doctor to object you allow them all to object- and there would be nothing from preventing an entire locality, county, state etc of medical "professionals" from objecting to a given list of procedures solely for some "moral objection".



Religious group attacks religion in U.S. healthcare

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Tue Apr 24, 6:11 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.

They said last week's Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.

The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.

"With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services," the group said in a statement.

"They are imposing their points of view," Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

She noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice
Anthony Kennedy, Justice
Samuel Alito, Justice
Clarence Thomas and Justice
Antonin Scalia.

All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including
President George W. Bush.

The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.

"Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called 'religious or moral objection,' refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options," the group said in a statement.

CODIFYING RELIGION

"And now, to make it worse, the government is codifying these refusals, first through legislation and now with the recent Supreme Court decision, where five Catholic men decided that they could better determine what was moral and good than the physicians, women and families facing difficult, personal choices in problem pregnancies," it added.

The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women's reproductive rights and several physicians.

"The threat comes from a few, but powerful, religions and a few ... powerful religious leaders who pretend to speak for all religions," said Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.

"Health care decisions ought to be made freely, based on medical expertise and individual conscience," he added.

The group wrote up a series of guidelines and asked for all health care providers to implement them.

They include allowing doctors to use best medical practices, providing comprehensive counseling on sexual or reproductive health and an agreement to honor advance directives -- including "do not resuscitate" orders.

"Refusal to provide health care would be balanced by alternate service delivery so that no one would be victimized when another exercises his/her conscience," the guidelines read.

Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said she had grave concerns about the report.

"There is no recognition of the true meaning of the separation of church and state, which mandates that the free exercise of religion, including that of the provider, be respected," she said.

"What we have tried to avoid is to be coercive ourselves," Greenfield said. "We have tried to allow for the freedom of conscience of every participant in the health care system."