As a medical student and future doctor, I think that Catherine Fish’s description of the conscience laws (New regulations harm patients SN 10/13) as the “most backward rhetoric of the year” is disappointing hyperbole. As a secularist and future medical professional, I’m very sympathetic to the desires of women seeking contraception and abortions and have no moral convictions that would impede my performing these procedures.
Despite this, I disagree with Fish that this law will in any way prevent “needed” services in response to “life-threatening” scenarios. In fact, according to Michigan law (MCL 333.20201), patients have the right to adequate and appropriate care by their physician. In addition, emergency facilities are also required by law to provide any emergent care to the extent of stabilization and palliative care; this includes the rare instance where repair of a ruptured, hemorrhaging uterus requires a correlative abortion.
Abortions and contraception are elective treatments that patients are free to seek from a provider within their means and choosing. In fact, physicians have informally been allowed to refuse elective procedures such as these. This law simply protects doctors and other health care workers from lawsuits in an already highly litigious environment. I support this law because it protects physicians from having to perform elective and nonemergent procedures that run into direct moral collision with beliefs that they are permitted to possess as protected by the Constitution.
A correct response should address the rise of religious fundamentalism in our country instead of forcing the physician’s hand.
Jordan Fett
first-year medical student
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “New law protects doctors from unnecessary lawsuits” on social media.
