As of this writing, a bill called the Medical Ethics Defense Act (HB 59) is sitting Idaho Legislature. Unfortunately, it’s likely to pass (maybe even by the time this op-ed is published) and the governor will likely sign it into law. It exempts professionals from the duty to care for patients if that care conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs. Professionals treat people all the time who challenge moral sensibilities. Applying self-reflection and separating one’s personal preferences from the duty to care defines professionalism. It’s clearly a bad idea for the government to interpose itself in professions with strict ethical standards, exempting practitioners from their responsibilities to treat everyone regardless of a person’s life choices or beliefs.
Those licensed to practice in the medical fields are required to study complex and comprehensive codes of ethics as a prelude to licensure. These codes stress the need to be aware of one’s values, and to treat all people with professionalism and respect. How a person chooses to live is not sufficient justification to not serve that individual. It’s reasonable to disagree, but that disagreement is not reason enough to withhold care.
Health professions developed professional organizations to police themselves through professional review and codes of ethics as an alternative to two dangers. First, codes of ethics self-regulate a profession so that government need not regulate its practitioners. Codes of ethics encourage open and transparent practice and challenge professionals to be reflective and self-aware. Second, self-policing of a profession through a code of ethics reduces malicious or unethical practice by individuals seeking to pray on the suffering of others. For example, snake oil salespeople touting cures that had no evidence base of support.
This legislation allows medical practitioners to exempt themselves from treating patients in cases which conflict with their religious beliefs. One should not worry about the religion of their healthcare provider. What is important is a practitioner’s competence and compassion. With this bill, patients will need to consider the religious or ethical preference of their medical provider as part of their evaluation of medical best fit.
Imagine the situation where a person seeks birth control, but the professional says “I cannot serve you, for your choice conflicts with my deeply held belief that sex should only occur within the sanctity of marriage.” What happens when a pharmacist says that he or she will not administer a vaccine because that interferes with their individual sense of ethics?
A breach of ethics can have severe consequences, potentially leading to loss of life, financial ruin or significant legal repercussions. By adhering to a code of ethics, professionals in the medical field provide services that are safe, dependable and trustworthy. Let us leave doctoring to the doctors, religion to the religious and ethics to the people who care deeply about their work caring for others. The government should stay out of the bedroom, the clinic and the pharmacy.
Todd DeVries is a mental health professional in Idaho Falls. He is the state committeeman for the Bonneville County Democratic Central Committee.