A federal regulation with a “right of conscience” provision allowing medical professionals to refuse to participate in treatments they oppose morally is set to be finalized by Bush administration officials this week. But it looks like the rule will be short-lived.
The Wall Street Journal reports today that members of the Obama transition team are taking a hard look at that and other regulations that could have an effect on reproductive rights issues, with an eye on reversing them once the president-elect is in office. The rule set to go into effect this week would allow health workers to opt out of performing some services including providing birth control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
The rules that could be affected range from budgetary allocations to regulations and executive orders.
One of the first actions in this arena by the incoming president will be lifting an executive order limiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Another rule on the chopping block could be the so-called “global gag rule,” which prevents foreign organizations receiving federal funding from spending anything on family planning services that include abortion services or advocacy.
More here from the Journal. More on the regulation here from Lawyers USA (sub. req’d).
DC Dicta - Lawyers USA 
The Bush administration announced its “conscience protection” 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’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…………………