Physicians' Right of Conscience
On August 9, 2008, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mike Leavitt
posted an entry to his official blog addressing the ongoing controversy surrounding physicians' right to conscience with respect to reproductive medicine. The issue first arose when Secretary Leavitt responded to a November 2007 report issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Ethics Committee which asserted in the context of providing abortions, "Physicians and other health care professionals have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive service that patients request."
In March 2008, Secretary Leavitt
issued a letter to Dr. Norman Gant, Executive Director of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, expressing his "strong concern over recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual rights of health care providers." Leavitt wrote, "I am concerned that the actions taken by ACOG and ABOG could result in the denial or revocation of Board certification of a physician who -- but for his or her refusal, for example, to refer a patient for an abortion -- would be certified. These actions, in turn, could result in certain HHS-funded State and local governments, institutions, or other entities that require Board certification taking action against the physician based just on the Board's denial or revocation of certification. In particular, I am concerned that such actions by these entities would violate federal laws against discrimination." Describing responses to his letter from ACOG and ABOG, Leavitt stated, " Frankly, I found their response to be dodgy and unsatisfying."
Concerned about the implications of the ACOG recommendation, Secretary Leavitt directed his staff to draft regulations to enforce three federal laws protecting health providers' right of conscience. An early draft of the regulations that "found its way into public circulation" contained language that reproductive rights advocates interpreted as allowing providers to define contraception as abortion, which would presumably allow physicians to refuse to provide contraception based on right of conscience. In his blog post, Secretary Leavitt stated that the proposed regulations would address only the legal right of physicians to practice according to their conscience, and would not specifically address abortion or contraceptives.
The August 9 blog post received more than 850 comments, prompting Leavitt to
post another entry yesterday expressing strong support for physicians' right to conscience and stressing that this right should remain the focus of the debate:
This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion. The courts have long ago identified that right and continue to define its limits. This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that. This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience. Does the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association [quoted in Leavitt's post] believe we can protect by Constitution, statute and practice rights of free speech, race, religion, and abortion—but not conscience?
Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?
Secretary Leavitt noted that HHS has not made a final decision as to whether the proposed regulations will be issued, but added that the debate has highlighted to him the need for regulations protecting physicians' right of conscience.