Basking in the glow of having finished my final paper for our bioethics class, I wonder what I will be wondering about this time next week without an assigned dilemma to consider.
For me, the stem cell debate, the genetics debate, the euthanasia debate, etc. all come together very concretely in the issue of health care worker’s ‘conscience clause’. I borrow from the Washington Post article linked below to describe some examples.
“In Chicago, an ambulance driver refused to transport a patient for an abortion. In California, fertility specialists rebuffed a gay woman seeking artificial insemination. In Texas, a pharmacist turned away a rape victim seeking the morning-after pill.”
Is it right for health care workers to refuse to do thing that violate their own moral and religious values? Or do healers have an ethical and professional responsibility to put patients first?
The heck if I know.
But I will be thinking on it. ... sort of like a never-ending Thursday night discussion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500846.html
PJM
2 comments:
No, healers and pharamacists should not be able to put their moral beliefs before their professional responsibility to help patients. A patient's right to receive the legal medical care he or she so chooses for his or her body outweighs doctors' and pharmacists' moral values. The doctors and pharamcists can stick to their personal morals when it comes to decisions for their own bodies, but should not impart those morals on others seeking care.
Post a Comment