Hey, this may be good news...

[tammyswanson]

As far as any doctors or nurses that don't want to perform/participate in circumcisions, that is. Let's hope it causes the rates to go even lower!! :

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08354/936215-115.stm

The Bush administration announced its "conscience protection" rule for the health care industry yesterday, giving everyone from doctors and hospitals to receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.

[Nandi]

Good for intactivism, but bad for birth control access. A mixed bag.

[beru]

This is a very very bad law. As a medical practitioner, you could end up hiring a receptionist (with no medical knowledge) who objects to some of your procedures. She could cause trouble with your clients and you wouldn't be able to fire her. I am prochoice and that is the obvious implication of it. However, this could have wide-reaching implications...this could extend to those who object to all types of contraception. Other objections are possible: someone may believe a selected vax schedule is dangerous to the child. Clipping tongue ties, external cephalic versions, VBACs...

I don't think it is a totally bad idea but this law is too broad.

[LiLStar]

Weird. If worded very carefully, this could be a good thing, but the wording would have to be just right. I don't understand what a receptionist has to do with anything. A receptionist doesn't provide medical care. The only "participation" the receptionist has is scheduling the appt! I'm all for drs/nurses being able to refuse to participate in non-emergency or elective procedures that they disagree with. But if its an emergency or urgent situation, then it should be an obligation.

There's already plenty of drs who kick kids out of their practice for not vaxing, or refuse to "allow" a mom to vbac. I don't see this law making either of those situations worse because a dr doesnt have to do anything in order for a vbac to happen.. its not a procedure that the dr actively performs. (passively, maybe) and not receiving vaxes on schedule isnt a "procedure" its the default. Its the dr not doing something. Not sure if I'm expressing my thoughts clearly here!