Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
CBHD: Reflections on Wisconsin’s "Conscience Clause” Bill - John T. Dunlop CBHD: Reflections on Wisconsin’s "Conscience Clause” Bill - John T. Dunlop Home > Articles > Health Care and Clinical Ethics Email Services | News Media | Search About CBHD Articles Conferences Speaker/Consultant Bureau Shop@CBHD Join/Support CBHD Bioethics Biotechnology Cloning Death and Dying Genetics Health Care and Clinical Ethics Reproductive Ethics Stem Cell ResearchBook ReviewsCase StudiesMovie Reviews News Archive Links to Additional Bioethical Material Reflections on Wisconsin's "Conscience Clause" Bill by John T. Dunlop Printer-Friendly Version John T. Dunlop, MD is Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and is on staff at Zion Clinic (Zion, IL) and Victory Memorial Hospital (Waukegan, IL). Post Date: August 22, 2003 The question of whether health care professionals may decline to participate in medical procedures that they find objectionable is being met with increasing controversy. Forty-five states now have legislation protecting clinicians from being required to act against their consciences. Such legislation is primarily geared toward issues of abortion and sterilization; however, the state of Wisconsin has recently delved further into the debate. This summer the lower house passed legislation (AB67) amending previous "conscience" law to include not only abortion and sterilization, but also any activity involving embryo destruction, the use of fetal tissue, or the removal of artificial nutrition or hydration with the intent of causing death. In addition, the legislation--which the upper chamber is slated to debate in September--also speaks to assisted suicide and euthanasia. It is notable that the Wisconsin Medical Society opposes this bill because it drops the requirement that a physician who opts out of a medical procedure or intervention for conscience sake must refer her patient to another provider. The WMS maintains that a high standard of medical practice requires the referral and transfer of records as a means of maintaining quality care. Full Article: http://www.cbhd.org/resources/healthcare/dunlop_2003-08-22.htm |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||