(Reuters Health) – Most US law has blocked laws which have prevented civil jurisdictions from showing a new study because of a doctor who refuses to make abortion or certain other medical procedures because of religious beliefs. t
The national survey found that 46 states defending professionals and medical institutions had laws from being sued for harm to patients involved in refusing to provide services from conscience, researchers report in JAMA.
“The biggest one that this research takes is that while people are aware that the laws of conscience can affect a woman's right to access reproductive services, they may not know that a woman's right to access reproductive services. These laws could affect access to the legal system when they are injured as a result of conscientious refusal, ”said study author Nadia Sawicki, Georgia's Legal Professor of Law at Loyola Chicago Law School.
“The majority of patients have no idea whether their local hospital is religiously affiliated,” said Sawicki. “So they don't know if there are suppliers who can't provide services. I hope that this research will give an insight into the very real impact of conscience laws not only on access to care but on the right to legal recovery in cases where the patient is injured. ”
Although the current report analyzed laws affecting abortion, Sawicki noted that there is a larger study looking at other reproductive services, including sterilization, emergency contraception and assisted reproduction. The full dataset is available on the LawAtlas Policy Surveillance Portal, said Sawicki.
To look more closely at the prevalence of this conscience laws, Sawicki through Westlaw, the most used research database of state laws and regulations, and legislative websites to identify laws in force at December 17, 2018, protects the the right to refuse participation in abortion. (Westlaw is a Thomson Reuters product but has no connection with Reuters Health.)
In total, 46 states had one or more laws defending clinicians and institutions, as well as other individuals and entities, from harmful consequences that may arise as a result of their conscientious refusal to participate in abortion. . The most common defense was the prohibition of civil jurisdictions against persons conscientiously refusing to report Sawicki.
Most of the states did not have exceptions from the laws, even in cases of ectopic pregnancy that might be fatal, and most of the clinician was not bound to refer or access information provision of services. Twenty-one states did not impose any conditions on rights of refusal.
Some states limited the exemption from dealers in emergency situations (13 states), miscarriage (four states), and eopopic pregnancy (three states).
The study shows that most states gave greater attention to the rights of the providers than to the needs of patients, said Dr. Albert Wu, an intern and professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Public Health School Bloomberg. It is “upsetting that patients in 37 states are not entitled to these services and that patients are injured as a result,” said Wu. “It is widely believed that patients should come first.”
“This crosses a line to a point where the rights of employees are interfering with the rights of patients,” said Wu. “I think patients need more safeguards to ensure that the choices of medical professionals do not hinder their right to health.” T
SOURCE: bit.ly/2qj06dt JAMA, online November 19, 2019.
(TTTranslate tags) US (t) HEALTH (t) REPORT (t) ACCESS (t) Obstetrics / Gynecology (t) Health / Medicine (t) Health Care Professional Development (t) Medical Law (t) Sexual Health Clinic Medicine (t) t ) Religion / Belief (TBC) (TBC) (t) Pregnancy and Newborn (T) Medical Ethics (t) Women t