Physicians Should Not Be Judges Of Morality
A bill that would legally protect healthcare professionals from refusing medical services to people (unless it’s an emergency procedure), simply because it’s against their beliefs, is making its way into the Florida House of Representatives.
In my opinion, the Protection of Medical Conscience Bill runs in direct contradiction to the duty of healthcare workers to heal and care for patients to the best of their ability.
This bill will place an irresponsible amount of power in the hands of healthcare providers. It also places an undue burden on already marginalized communities, such as the LGBTQ, and is so broadly defined it would set a dangerous precedent.
It is not the place of doctors or insurance providers to decide what is immoral or not. Their only goal should be to better the health of their patients.
The morality of a medical service should be left to the patients or their parents.
We can’t act like the refusal of an individual physician or insurance company will not have big consequences on those searching for medical care.
LGBTQ patients who live in rural or faith-based communities might have a very difficult time finding healthcare that is a reasonable distance from their residence. The same goes for an individual who would have to change their insurance provider, an already complicated process, simply because this provider ideologically disagrees with a procedure they want.
A homosexual Floridian might be refused a prescription of PREP, which might prevent them from contracting HIV, because their physician does not agree with their sexual life. The same might be said for an insurance company that might refuse to pay for said medication under the same rationale.
But people’s identities can’t be separated from the services they need or want.
We have already judged it unacceptable for clerks to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples even if they personally disagree. Why? Because refusing specific services under the excuse that what is being refused is a service and not a person is a bad argument. Regardless of intention, it’ll lead indirectly to discrimination and unequal opportunity for care based on people’s identities, which is unacceptable.
Some who are not part of these marginalized communities might feel safe. However, we should all be wary because it doesn’t only affect the LGBTQ.
Jehova’s Witnesses consider blood transfusions unethical and would be allowed to refuse to perform this procedure unless the patient was in imminent danger. Even if the patient isn’t in imminent danger, this would still cause harm. Harm is an unacceptable consequence from an industry that is supposed to heal us.
At the beginning of the century, this nation justified racial segregation under the idea that institutions could be “separate but equal”.
A healthcare industry that segregates, refuses service and separates patients will never be equitable nor fair.
Individuals who do not wish to provide health services that they disagree with should not partake in a profession whose main purpose is to care for others.
We should not allow this bill to add another obstacle for Americans seeking medical care, especially during this pandemic where options and accessibility are already limited.
