It's not just pharmacists...
Jun. 28th, 2007 09:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengr... who are refusing things based on "conscience".
Doctors are doing it too
I think we need a law that says that doctors, clinincs and hospitals have to tell you up front about services and treatments that they won't provide for "moral" reasons. It should also state that if they discover something they hadn't realized was going to be a problem, then they have to provide a refferal elsewhere (and said elsewhere had best be someplace the patient can get to without major hassle) and they have to refund any fees for the visit.
In the case of ERs, they'd have to transport the patient to somewhere standard treatment can be provided if they object to such. And do so at *their* expense, not the patient's. And again, they don't get to charge the patient for anything they *did* do (yes, this is punitive. It's *intended* to be!)
Mergers that result in the loss of services in an area due to a hospital or clinic having to drop services/treat,ents for such reasons would not be allowed. They'd be considered "contrary to the public interest"
If a doctor or facility associated with an HMO refuses a treatment or refuse for reasons of "conscience", the HMO cannot charge for anything except services actually provide that visit and must provide a *timely* visit with a doctor who will provide the service. Said visit will *not* carry an "office visit" or similar charge because the new visit is due to the HMO's error, not the patient. .
Failure to comply is grounds for loss of license for the docor or facility. Or, in the case where the facility is the "only choice" for an area, the facility will be taken over by the state and forced to cease imposing religiouds restrictions on treatment.
And for the all too common case of poor patients or patients in rural areas being unable to get the treatement/service because nobody in their area is willing to provide it, the state must ensure that there is a way for them to get the service.
Oh yeah, we need a *federal* law stating that it is illegal for any state to impose any penalty for going out of state if that is necessary for any medical service
or assissting someone to do so (yes, there are states where laws have been proposed that would criminalize going out of state for an abortion that wasn't legal in that state or for assisting them in doing so).
Do note that this is one of the cases where the "interstate commerce" clause really *does* apply.
Yeah, most of this would be a hard sell, but most of it is *necessary*. A right that cannot be exercised is not a right, but a privelege.
ETA: Oh yeah, those notices about what services & treatments they won't provide? Require them to be in the "legal notices" section of the local paper. And to be posted prominently at their offices, and handed out to potential patients.
And they have to make reports one all refusals. With a bg fine for non-compliance. As well as inform the patient that they have a right to file a complaint.
Doctors are doing it too
I think we need a law that says that doctors, clinincs and hospitals have to tell you up front about services and treatments that they won't provide for "moral" reasons. It should also state that if they discover something they hadn't realized was going to be a problem, then they have to provide a refferal elsewhere (and said elsewhere had best be someplace the patient can get to without major hassle) and they have to refund any fees for the visit.
In the case of ERs, they'd have to transport the patient to somewhere standard treatment can be provided if they object to such. And do so at *their* expense, not the patient's. And again, they don't get to charge the patient for anything they *did* do (yes, this is punitive. It's *intended* to be!)
Mergers that result in the loss of services in an area due to a hospital or clinic having to drop services/treat,ents for such reasons would not be allowed. They'd be considered "contrary to the public interest"
If a doctor or facility associated with an HMO refuses a treatment or refuse for reasons of "conscience", the HMO cannot charge for anything except services actually provide that visit and must provide a *timely* visit with a doctor who will provide the service. Said visit will *not* carry an "office visit" or similar charge because the new visit is due to the HMO's error, not the patient. .
Failure to comply is grounds for loss of license for the docor or facility. Or, in the case where the facility is the "only choice" for an area, the facility will be taken over by the state and forced to cease imposing religiouds restrictions on treatment.
And for the all too common case of poor patients or patients in rural areas being unable to get the treatement/service because nobody in their area is willing to provide it, the state must ensure that there is a way for them to get the service.
Oh yeah, we need a *federal* law stating that it is illegal for any state to impose any penalty for going out of state if that is necessary for any medical service
or assissting someone to do so (yes, there are states where laws have been proposed that would criminalize going out of state for an abortion that wasn't legal in that state or for assisting them in doing so).
Do note that this is one of the cases where the "interstate commerce" clause really *does* apply.
Yeah, most of this would be a hard sell, but most of it is *necessary*. A right that cannot be exercised is not a right, but a privelege.
ETA: Oh yeah, those notices about what services & treatments they won't provide? Require them to be in the "legal notices" section of the local paper. And to be posted prominently at their offices, and handed out to potential patients.
And they have to make reports one all refusals. With a bg fine for non-compliance. As well as inform the patient that they have a right to file a complaint.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 05:29 am (UTC)Which is just screwed up - there's no good reason to refuse to display the protocols they choose to adopt. There are a bunch of really dodgy ones, though.
off-topic...
Date: 2007-06-29 07:03 am (UTC)on topic
Date: 2007-06-29 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 08:24 am (UTC)It would be great of the VA Hospital system would follow these rules too. I run into this kind of issue all the time with them.
Chrissy Michelle
Cayenne Photos!
no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 07:34 pm (UTC)Not that that'd stop them. :-)
Re: off-topic...
Date: 2007-06-29 07:36 pm (UTC)Hmm. You knowing her... is that a recommendation or a warning sign?
:-)
(just kidding)
Re: on topic
Date: 2007-06-29 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-29 07:45 pm (UTC)Check this out, though...
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/467/bot11a07.doc
Re: off-topic...
Date: 2007-06-30 04:43 am (UTC)Re: on topic
Date: 2007-06-30 04:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 01:50 pm (UTC)I agree that it will be a hard sell. But I also agree that it's necessary.
And it's really sad that there even needs to be a law on this ..
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 09:20 pm (UTC)Alas, their idea of help is different than ours.
And it's really sad that there even needs to be a law on this ..
When you get right down to it, that's true of just about *all* laws.