<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bush’s new “right of conscience” rule to be swiftly axed by Obama</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/bush%e2%80%99s-new-%e2%80%9cright-of-conscious%e2%80%9d-rule-to-be-swiftly-axed-by-obama/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/bush%e2%80%99s-new-%e2%80%9cright-of-conscious%e2%80%9d-rule-to-be-swiftly-axed-by-obama/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:02:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mbspringer133</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/bush%e2%80%99s-new-%e2%80%9cright-of-conscious%e2%80%9d-rule-to-be-swiftly-axed-by-obama/#comment-1540</link>
		<dc:creator>mbspringer133</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/?p=1304#comment-1540</guid>
		<description>The Bush administration announced its &quot;conscience protection&quot; rule for the health care industry yesterday, giving everyone including doctors, hospitals, receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.

Now heres the clincher........................

The right-to-refuse rule includes abortion, but Leavitt&#039;s office said it extends to other aspects of health care where moral concerns could arise, including birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide.

Now lets say a doctor who believes in assisted suicide lets it be known in some subtle way. What if old uncle fred knows this and insists on being taken to this doctor knowing that the doctor will not try very hard to keep him alive because it goes against his conscience? Pretty soon all the elderly who want to die will be going to this doctor who can defend his actions on moral grounds.

Now lets say that there is a doctor who is not crazy about the police. A wounded officer is rushed to the hospital and the doctor refuses treatment on moral  grounds.

Lets say that there is a Vietnamese or Iraqi doctor on the night shift at a major hospital, and some decorated veteran who has had his picture in the paper arrive for an emergency procedure with only minutes to live. The doctor refuses treatment on moral grounds.

Lets say that anyone who has had their picture in the paper or the court report is rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment with only minutes to live. The doctor in attendance has seen their picture in the paper or read the court report and refuses treatment on moral grounds.

Lets say a doctor is not very good, bottom of the class, drunk, whatever , and the patient dies. Can the doctor claim that their behaviour was actually the result of a moral decision so as to avoid a malpractice suit?

LETS THINK ABOUT THIS.....................</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Bush administration announced its &#8220;conscience protection&#8221; rule for the health care industry yesterday, giving everyone including doctors, hospitals, receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.</p>
<p>Now heres the clincher&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>The right-to-refuse rule includes abortion, but Leavitt&#8217;s office said it extends to other aspects of health care where moral concerns could arise, including birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide.</p>
<p>Now lets say a doctor who believes in assisted suicide lets it be known in some subtle way. What if old uncle fred knows this and insists on being taken to this doctor knowing that the doctor will not try very hard to keep him alive because it goes against his conscience? Pretty soon all the elderly who want to die will be going to this doctor who can defend his actions on moral grounds.</p>
<p>Now lets say that there is a doctor who is not crazy about the police. A wounded officer is rushed to the hospital and the doctor refuses treatment on moral  grounds.</p>
<p>Lets say that there is a Vietnamese or Iraqi doctor on the night shift at a major hospital, and some decorated veteran who has had his picture in the paper arrive for an emergency procedure with only minutes to live. The doctor refuses treatment on moral grounds.</p>
<p>Lets say that anyone who has had their picture in the paper or the court report is rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment with only minutes to live. The doctor in attendance has seen their picture in the paper or read the court report and refuses treatment on moral grounds.</p>
<p>Lets say a doctor is not very good, bottom of the class, drunk, whatever , and the patient dies. Can the doctor claim that their behaviour was actually the result of a moral decision so as to avoid a malpractice suit?</p>
<p>LETS THINK ABOUT THIS&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
