CMDA | CMA's Presentation to President's Council on Bioethics

Home
Issues & Ethics
Healthcare
Conscience Rights

CMA's Presentation to President's Council on Bioethics

Edmund D. Pellegrino
Chairman

November 9, 2007--I appreciated very much the discussion and excellent points made yesterday on the issue of physicians exercising their right of conscience. I would like to present a practical example of how that issue impacts medicine.

Because the way things are going, some would actually force out of the profession those physicians who have moral objections to procedures such as abortion. And that loss of physicians--especially Obstetricians and Gynecologists who are already leaving because of malpractice insurance costs--would have a severe impact on the delivery of healthcare.

The Committee on Ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), an organization that is officially and politically pro-choice or pro-abortion, depending on which term you prefer, has just issued a paper laying down the rules for when and how and why pro-life physicians may or may not exercise their rights of conscience—mostly how they may not exercise their rights of conscience.

A few excerpts from the paper illustrate the war that is being waged against conscience rights and also how far apart are the worldviews of those who have conscientious objections to abortion and those who do not.

ACOG says in its position paper, for example, that physicians may not exercise their right of conscience if that might "constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients."

That would seem to mean that any physician who has religiously based objections to a procedure or prescription would be forced to ignore his or her conscience and simply fulfill the patient's demands like a vending machine.

The ACOG paper also says, "all healthcare providers must provide accurate and unbiased information so that patients can make informed decisions."

That sounds great until you realize that ACOG will only apply this rule to make pro-life doctors offer abortion as an option. ACOG has actually gone to court to fight laws requiring abortion doctors to offer informed consent information to patients on the risks and alternatives to abortion.^[¹^]

ACOG also says, "Physicians…have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive service that patients request."

So according to ACOG, physicians who see abortion as killing a developing baby have a duty to refer patients to a doctor who will do the deed.

And finally, ACOG suggests that "Providers with moral or religious objections should … practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views…"

So ACOG rules would actually require a pro-life physician to relocate his or her practice to be close to an abortion facility. Besides the fact that this drastic requirement would only be imposed on pro-life doctors, it would also have the practical impact of removing desperately needed doctors from underserved areas.

These statements from ACOG would seem to illustrate why the issue of the conscience rights of those who provide healthcare should not and cannot be separated from the issue of healthcare delivery.

^{[I] American College of
Obstetricians v. Thornburgh, 737 F.2d 283, 297-98 (3d
Cir.1984).}