"Thankfully, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has just proposed a regulation to increase awareness of and compliance with the law. When, some time after a 30-day period for public commentary (through Sept. 25), this regulation is officially adopted by HHS, many health-care workers will benefit from clearer guidance and better enforcement of the law, and they and won't have to sacrifice their personal convictions to preserve their professional livelihoods. And the regulation would secure institutions' rights under the law as well."
          From "Respect Health-Care Workers," an op-ed that appeared Wednesday in the Washington Times.

On first blush, you would think honoring the consciences of health-care personnel would be a no-brainer. And as you read the opening paragraphs of the op-ed authored by Adm. Joxel Garcia, assistant secretary for health with the Department of Health and Human Services, you'd be only more convinced this should be non-controversial. It turns out, however, that the proposed HHS regulation is anything but.

"There is no more sacred right than the right of conscience - the right to be guided by one's own cherished beliefs and moral convictions," Garcia writes. "On several occasions in the past three decades, Congress has passed laws protecting health-care workers' ability to act consistently with their rights of conscience."

The proposed regulation is intended to increase awareness of and compliance with these laws--not just for individuals but institutional health care providers as well.

And not a day too soon.  "[T]here is mounting pressure to disregard these laws." From whom? The usual suspects.

Garcia quotes from a recent issue of Congressional Quarterly where a prominent pro-abortion advocate said that "it's really not acceptable to the people I represent that this administration is considering allowing doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have received their education to provide services to now be able to not provide those services if they don't want to."  So much for "freedom of choice."

Garcia properly points out that medical personnel do not park their convictions at the door, nor are health-care providers "merely the equivalent of vending machines, robotically providing a service once they receive enough money."

Garcia explains that some critics hold the "narrow-minded view" that "health-care workers with strong, personal convictions should simply get out of the medical field." A rather odd position to take, given the anticipated shortages expected in many fields, including obstetrics and gynology, unless the "right" to abortion trumps every consideration.

So what would the proposed HHS  regulation actually require? Entities receiving HHS funds would need "to certify that they will abide by the law and that they will not force health-care workers to perform actions to which these workers object--whether the actions involve abortion or something of an entirely different nature," Garcia writes. "The overarching principle is the same regardless of the specific action: People should not be forced to provide health-care services that violate their own strongly held convictions." Garcia adds, "[F]ederal law explicitly shields health-care workers and institutions from such unwanted obligations."

He also makes clear in her Washington Times op-ed, "nothing in the proposed regulation in any way threatens a patient's ability to receive any legal service." If you look at the press release HHS sent out when asking for comment, it explains that "[T]he proposed regulation would in no way restrict health care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that does not assert a conflict of conscience."

But is the threat to freedom of conscience exaggerated? "More than 40 percent of our members -- physicians and medical students -- report that they have experienced pressure to violate standards of medical ethics," writes Jonathan Imbody, of the Christian Medical Association. "Medical students report eschewing careers in obstetrics and gynecology for fear of coercion to do abortions." 

The proposed HHS regulation, Imbody writes, "would simply disallow forcing professionals to perform elective abortions and other procedures that violate millennia of medical ethics codes."
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said it perfectly: "Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."

Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed regulations (including comments on the specific questions posed in the proposal) can do so at the website http://www.Regulations.gov.  Go to the Web site and click on the link "Comment or Submission" and enter the words "provider conscience."  (Note, attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, Microsoft Word is preferred).  

Or, you can submit comments via e-mail to consciencecomment@hhs.gov.

In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a blog where readers can submit general comments about the proposed regulations, at http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov