I enjoy debating and this is the
second course in the Master’s program where I’ve been able to debate as a part
of the course content. It’s always challenging to debate when you don’t necessarily
agree with the topic that you’ve been given. It’s interesting because toward
the end of the debate I actually started to believe my arguments! (Maybe that
means that I argued my points well). :-)
Out topic was that health care
professionals should not be exempt from patient situations where they have
conscientious objections. The more I learned about this topic the more I
realized how challenging it is. On the one hand you have health care providers
who also have a conscience and a belief system that may not necessarily “gel” with
that of the organization. And on the other hand you have the organization that
wants to make sure that there is order and process and more objectivity than
subjectivity. That’s what keeps them protected legally and otherwise. Of
course, in the midst of all of this is the patient’s wellbeing that must be considered.
It can be a pretty challenging situation.
I had a few primary issues with both
sides of the arguments. First, the argument of the pro side was that no
individual should be required to act against their conscience. I don’t agree with
that at all simply because of the varying perspectives of what is right and
wrong from one person to another. In my argument I frequently cited a study of
psychologists who had done some very unethical things in the name of patient
welfare and their “deeper values” (i.e. their conscience). Sometimes I think that
because doctors are doctors we automatically believe that they have sound
judgment. This is not always the case and leaving a doctor too much wiggle room
on what they believe to be morally right is a risky situation.
I also have issues with my own
argument which says that there is too much subjectivity in allowing doctors to
remove themselves from certain situations where they have a moral conflict. It’s
true that there is a lot of subjectivity there, but I also believe that in many
cases that is exactly what the health care system needs. To leave everything to
objective measures, laws and regulations implies that we have a perfect system—that
if we just follow the rules of the system that in the end it will all work out
and everyone will be happy. This is not always true and even if the goal is not
for everyone to be happy, but it’s to uphold the patient’s best interest that
doesn’t always happen either. We’ve all heard stories of the drama that people
go through with insurance companies or taking a prescription drug that causes
harm to the patient.
In my opinion, there’s no real way
to be on one side or the other when it comes to professional rights and
conscientious objections. In reality, I tend to lean somewhere in the middle of
the pro and con sides. We can’t use health care provider rights as a default
position nor can we use the perspective of solely relying on objective means to
determine what should be done. It requires an evaluation of the situation, case
by case. That means that there’s no cookie cutter approach and organizations
like cookie cutter because there’s certainty there and it’s less costly. But in
this case, evaluating the situation on an individual basis will be the best way
to move forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment