<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: conscience</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'conscience'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22conscience%22&t=%22conscience%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:04:18 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Don’t Let the Aphorism Be the Enemy of Thought</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4852840&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAbdjvAohbwQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Andrew J. CoulsonI am often told that pointing out the serious shortcomings of government-funded school vouchers and the relative superiority of education tax credits is a case of &amp;#8220;making the perfect the enemy of the good.&amp;#8221;
It&amp;#8217;s isn&amp;#8217;t.
That is a misapplication of Voltaire&amp;#8217;s famous aphorism. What the aphorism exhorts is that we not pursue an unattainable perfection when a good alternative is within reach. Education tax credits are not only attainable, they are usually easier to obtain than vouchers. Consider a recent example: Pennsylvania&amp;#8217;s state House has voted 190 to 7 to expand its existing EITC tax credit program while the state Senate has been deadlocked for weeks looking for the bare minimum of votes to pass a voucher bill.
On top of that, it is...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4852840</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 18:12:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4852840</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“Winning”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4704619&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZSt0Xu-Ax1E%2F</link>
            <description>By Andrew J. CoulsonI have an op-ed in the Huffington Post today arguing that it&amp;#8217;s possible to ensure universal access to education without compelling anyone to support types of instruction that violate their convictions. This eliminates the central objection that the ACLU and ADL have given for their opposition to private school choice. Indeed, if those organizations really care about freedom of conscience, they should prefer the policy solution I outline to the status quo system in which every taxpayer is compelled to support a single government organ of education. Or is there some other reason why the ACLU and ADL oppose liberating American education?
Feel free to chime-in in the comments section on Huff Po.
&amp;#8220;Winning&amp;#8221; is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4704619</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:20:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4704619</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lying As an Act of Love</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4438909&amp;cid=t_156541_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F02%2F05%2Flying-as-an-act-of-love%2F</link>
            <description>Experiments have found that ordinary people tell about two lies every ten minutes. I don&amp;#8217;t see how that&amp;#8217;s possible, as I&amp;#8217;ve been alone the last hour writing this piece (oh dear, am I making it up as I go along?). However, the half-hour before that, I averaged about fifteen per minute.
&amp;#8220;What are you eating, Mom?&amp;#8221; (I&amp;#8217;m shoving chocolate-dipped macaroons into my mouth at an ugly pace&amp;#8230;)
&amp;#8220;Carrots! Want some?&amp;#8221;
Robert Feldman, a social psychologist at the University of Massachusetts found that liars tend to be more popular than honest people (think politics). Because social skills involve telling people what they want to hear (things that aren&amp;#8217;t, um, true). The more social grace a person possesses, experiments say, the more willingness a...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4438909</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:33:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4438909</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Stepping Stones to Recovery Books</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3743724&amp;cid=t_156541_151_f&amp;fid=35818&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FRecoveryIsSexycom%2F%7E3%2F1597rHN3bQY%2F</link>
            <description>Stepping Stones To Recovery     An important resource that highlights the rewards recovery offers. This bestseller comes from the &amp;quot;group conscience&amp;quot; of members of the A.A. fellowship and is recommended reading for patients in many substance abuse treatment centers as well as alcoholism 
      Stepping Stones To Recovery For Men     This male perspective on the Twelve Step program offers insight into the unique needs of men through articles, reflections, and affirmations. It presents workable examples and ideas for positive personal and spiritual growth. 
      Stepping Stones To Recovery For Women     Articles, stories, slogans, and prayers written specifically for women highlight key Twelve Step recovery topics. Includes a daily reading guide. 


      Stepping Stones To Recover...</description>
            <author>Recovery Is Sexy.com</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3743724</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:16:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3743724</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ten Years in Women’s and Reproductive Health, a Bloggy Look Back</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3137480&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2F02%2Ften-years-in-womens-and-reproductive-health-a-bloggy-look-back%2F</link>
            <description>What with the new year and decade and all, it seems appropriate to engage in a bit of reflection. First, the blog itself. This year will mark the 5th anniversary of Women&amp;#8217;s Health News &amp;#8211; I first posted on May 19, 2005, although that was at the blogspot location. While this little blog is not among what most people would name as the top medical or top feminist blogs, I don&amp;#8217;t worry too much about traffic, or increasing traffic, so long as at least a a few people are finding it useful and I&amp;#8217;m not too overworked to deal with it. So, I expect to continue on for a bit longer. Will it make it to the decade mark? Who knows. I do sometimes find the lack of comments discouraging, but it is what it is. If there is anything you&amp;#8217;d like to see covered more often, or less of...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3137480</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:04:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3137480</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sunday News Round-Up, Monday Style – 11/2/09</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2954452&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2F02%2Fsunday-news-round-up-monday-style-11209%2F</link>
            <description>For at least part of the past weekend, I was busy attending the Southern Chapter of the Medical Library Association&amp;#8217;s annual conference in Memphis, TN, so the round-up is a bit delayed. A few things that caught my eye over the past week:
Meharry Medical College in Nashville got a big grant to fund research in women’s health, eliminating cancer disparities and HIV/AIDS.
A new edition of the Carnival Against Sexual Violence has been posted. 
Mom&amp;#8217;s Tinfoil Hat is talking about conscience clauses and their responsible application. 
The National Women&amp;#8217;s Law Center is doing a &amp;#8220;Women’s Day of Action for Health Care Reform&amp;#8221; blog-a-thon on Wednesday, Nov 4, and is asking women to sign up to &amp;#8220;to blog, tweet or post for fair, affordable and comprehensive health...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2954452</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:58:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2954452</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Weekly News Round-Up – More Links Than You Can Handle</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2663918&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F08%2F02%2Fweekly-news-round-up-more-links-than-you-can-handle%2F</link>
            <description>From some recent event or conference, and via @kgs, &amp;#8220;Information is how librarians express love.&amp;#8221; Check out the links to information below and consider yourself loved, because there is lots and lots of good stuff this week.  
I&amp;#8217;m going to refer you to Our Bodies Our Blog, of course. We&amp;#8217;ll be on a bit of a sabbatical this week, but there are plenty of recent posts of interest to catch up on. Via one of Christine&amp;#8217;s recent posts, for example, I learned of Oakland-based Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, which &amp;#8220;work(s) toward the day when all people have the power and resources to make healthy decisions about our gender, bodies and sexuality for ourselves, our families and our communities.&amp;#8221;
It&amp;#8217;s World Breastfeeding Week. Check out the li...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2663918</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:15:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2663918</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama Calls for &quot;Conscience Clause&quot; Rights While His Administration Destroys Existing Conscience Clause Rights</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2416841&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F05%2Fobama-calls-for-conscience-clause.html</link>
            <description>President Obama spoke at Notre Dame today, an invitation that created divisions within the Catholic Church that are beyond our scope or concern here. But in reading about the president's speech, I was reminded of how adept Obama is in saying one thing while doing just the opposite; such as claiming in his speech to support a conscience clause for health professionals on the issue of abortion (which would also apply to assisted suicide, etc.). From the story:He called for an effort to &quot;honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women,&quot; Obama said.Obama plans to revise a Bush-era &quot;conscience clause,&quot; w...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2416841</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 20:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2416841</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conscience Protection Rule</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2380905&amp;cid=t_156541_111_f&amp;fid=36048&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FAHeartyLife%2F%7E3%2F9hPRXgWOmo4%2F</link>
            <description>I never liked the “conscience protection” rule, which gives health care workers the right to refuse to provide treatments based on their beliefs. Health care workers can refuse to discuss or treat things relating to contraception, blood transfusions, and even vaccines if they want. But where do you draw the line. What is offensive to one person isn&amp;#8217;t to someone else.

More than that, if you sign on to be a medical worker, you should treat people as they need and as they request. Refusing to do certain things because you feel it’s wrong, is a way of judging people that I think only God is allowed to do.
Now, health care professionals &amp;#8220;might no longer be exempt from performing medical procedures that violate their religious beliefs if President Barack Obama reverses a rule ...</description>
            <author>A Hearty Life</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2380905</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:39:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2380905</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conscience Clause Poll</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2375954&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2Fconscience-clause-poll.html</link>
            <description>Should medical professionals be protected by &quot;conscience clauses?&quot;(online surveys) (Source: Secondhand Smoke)</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2375954</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:08:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2375954</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Coming Medical Conscription to Require Doctors to be Complicit in Assisted Suicides</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2375955&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2Fcoming-medical-conscription-to-require.html</link>
            <description>The day may be coming, and it might not be that far away, when doctors who are asked to help kill a patient--that is, to intentionally cause the patient's life to end--will be forced to either do the deed or refer to a doctor her or she knows will do the deed.We are seeing this conscription approach promoted in Washington State where many hospitals and doctors are refusing to participate in legalized assisted suicide, as is their right under the new law. This has angered assisted suicide advocates, who are now planting articles in newspapers and writing opinion articles trying to guilt doctors into violating their own consciences.The granddaughter of a man unable to commit assisted suicide has written such an article. She is a college student, and grieving her loss: Thus, I am not especial...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2375955</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:37:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2375955</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conscience Clause Court Victory in Illinois</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2347925&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2Fconscience-clause-court-victory-in.html</link>
            <description>A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the Governor of Illinois, protecting two pharmacists from having to dispense &quot;Plan B&quot; contraceptive pills due to religious objections. From the story:A central Illinois judge has ruled that the state can't force two pharmacists with religious objections to abortion to dispense emergency contraception. Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz issued a temporary restraining order Friday until he can hear arguments against the rule from druggists who object on religious grounds.The pill reduces the chance of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sex. The pharmacists believe it's tantamount to abortion.Belz is the same judge who sided with the state and dismissed the lawsuit filed in 2005 by Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, who...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2347925</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:48:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2347925</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Stanley Fish Ain't for Conscience Clauses for Medical Professionals</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2347929&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2Fstanley-fish-aint-for-conscience.html</link>
            <description>As I often say, the culture of death brooks no dissent. Now, none other than the celebrated academic Stanley Fish--perhaps best known for promoting post modernism (although he says he is an anti foundationalist, and who cares anyway)--claims that doctors and nurses who don't wish to take human life should just get over it. From his NYT (of course) blog:What's the big deal [if doctors refuse to perform some procedures], for after all, &quot;If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that does not assert a conflict of conscience&quot; (HHS News Release, August 21, 2008).But should patients be asked to add to the problems they already have the problem of having to figure out (if they have the time) which providers wil...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2347929</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:08:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2347929</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ray of Sunshine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2326796&amp;cid=t_156541_140_f&amp;fid=35448&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fseemedlikeagoodideathetime.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2F06%2Fray-of-sunshine%2F</link>
            <description>Update: 
The comment period is almost over

You may comment  here

Or here
***************************************************

That&amp;#8217;s me. Nothin but good news and good times here.
Now for your health care minute.  AKA  &amp;#8220;Token Health care related post&amp;#8221;~which I should comment on since I&amp;#8217;m quoting and linking it&amp;#8230;but nah.
Conscience protection for physicians. Do not think for a minute that it&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8220;just about [...] (Source: bipolar chicks blogging)</description>
            <author>bipolar chicks blogging</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2326796</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:53:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2326796</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My Two Cents Worth: I urge HHS to Revise, but not Revoke the Bush &quot;Conscience Clause&quot; Regulation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306941&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F04%2Fmy-two-cents-worth-i-urge-hhs-to-revise.html</link>
            <description>In my role as a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute, I sent a formal comment to the Department of Health and Human Services opposing its intent to revoke the Bush Conscience clause. Instead of revoking it, I urge that it be revised to prevent it from being relied on by physicians to impose futile care theory or other form of discriminatory refusal of care against the elderly, people with disabilities and the dying. I then suggested principles to follow to construct a conscience clause that is sufficiently nuanced and limited in scope to protect the rights of health care workers and prevent discrimination against patients. From my comment: In revising the rule, I urge the following principles to be embodied into an amended Conscience Clause:-- It should pr...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306941</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:46:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306941</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>At Our Bodies Our Blog: Opinion Piece on “Conscience” in NEJM</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306054&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F31%2Fat-our-bodies-our-blog-opinion-piece-on-conscience-in-nejm%2F</link>
            <description>The New England Journal of Medicine has just published a perspective piece on the issue of provider conscience and the HHS &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; rule - at OBOB, I have some key snippets, and links to our past coverage of the issue. 
Reminder: public comments on rescinding the rule can be submitted through April 9. 
Posted in Ethics, Government (Source: Women's Health News)</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306054</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:09:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306054</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Forced Speech: Pushing Against Conscientious Objection by Medical Practioners to Abortion in California</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306963&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F03%2Fforced-speech-pushing-against.html</link>
            <description>The following post will be about abortion and conscientious objection thereto by medical professionals. But it could just as easily be about assisted suicide, or using embryonic stem cell therapies, or pulling feeding tubes, because the principles are the same--as are the reasons for the attempted coercion of medical professionals to cooperate with life terminating medical procedures.I have been reporting that doctors and other medical professionals who wish to hold to an orthodox Hippocratic view of medical professionalism are going to increasingly be forced by law to either be complicit in these actions or become podiatrists. The most blunt method of destroying Hippocratic medicine in this manner is the new Victoria, Australia law requiring doctors to either perform an abortion upon requ...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306963</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:39:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306963</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Weekly News Round-Up</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306057&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F29%2Fweekly-news-round-up-4%2F</link>
            <description>The New England Journal of Medicine has a Perspectives piece from Julie D. Cantor, M.D., J.D. about the HHS conscience rule. Don&amp;#8217;t forget - you have only until April 9 to submit your public comment regarding the potential rescinding of the rule. 
At Our Bodies Our Blog, Christine points to real problems with the seemingly innocuous Real Age quiz online, including how your responses are sold off to advertisers. A colleague found this story that I see as related, How Big Pharma Listens in on Doctor Networks. 
C also linked to the webcast, The Effect of the Economic Downturn on the Health of Communities of Color, which is archived online. 
I haven&amp;#8217;t seen it yet, but I recently learned of the film Not Yet Rain, and the descrip sounds promising:
Not Yet Rain, a Lisa Russell film pro...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306057</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:01:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306057</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Online Commenting Open on Rescinding the “Conscience” Rule</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2255659&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Fonline-commenting-open-on-rescinding-the-conscience-rule%2F</link>
            <description>Regulations.gov now has the proposed rule to the rescind Bush administration&amp;#8217;s last minute &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; rule here. It&amp;#8217;s all ready to receive your online submissions of public comments, which are due by April 9, 2009. To comment online, click on the little yellow &amp;#8220;speech bubble&amp;#8221; beside the text, &amp;#8220;Add Comments.&amp;#8221; You can view the entire proposed rule by clicking on the html or PDF icons beside &amp;#8220;Views.&amp;#8221; 
Posted in Access, Rights, &amp; Choice, Government, Laws, Legislation, &amp; Courts (Source: Women's Health News)</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2255659</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:52:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2255659</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Action to Rescind the “Conscience” Rule in Today’s Federal Register</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2255663&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F10%2Faction-to-rescind-the-conscience-rule-in-todays-federal-register%2F</link>
            <description>As anticipated, the proposed rule to rescind the Bush Administration&amp;#8217;s &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; rule was published in today&amp;#8217;s Federal Register. This kick-starts the 30-day public comment period - comments are due by April 9, 2009. The following are the instructions for comment:
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to &amp;#8220;Rescission Proposal.&amp;#8221; To better manage the comment process, we will not accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.Regulations.gov or via e-mail to proposedrescission@hhs.gov. To submit electronic comments to http://www.Regulations.gov, go to the Web site and click on the link &amp;#8220;Comment...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2255663</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:08:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2255663</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>30 Day Public Comment Period on Rescinding “Conscience” Rule to Open Tuesday</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2239791&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F06%2F30-day-public-comment-period-on-rescinding-conscience-rule-to-open-tuesday%2F</link>
            <description>The Federal Register&amp;#8217;s current list of inspection documents (items to be published in upcoming editions) includes notice that the proposed rule to rescind the HHS &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; rule will be published on Tuesday, March 10. Its publication on that date will open a 30-day public comment on the newly proposed rule.
On the inspection documents page, look for:
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
See CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
PROPOSED RULES
Rescission of the Regulation entitled &amp;#8220;Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law
2009-05067 View Pdf
[Filed: 03/06/09 at 11:15am; Publication Date: 3/10/2009]
From there you will be able to download a PDF of the...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2239791</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:23:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2239791</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Way to Completely Misrepresent the “Conscience” Issue, Fox News</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2239793&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F05%2Fway-to-completely-misrepresent-the-conscience-issue-fox-news%2F</link>
            <description>&amp;#8230;by making it seem as though the idea that providers might go to jail for refusing to perform abortions if the Bush &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; rule is overturned by the Obama administration is legitimate or realistic at all. Because when you repeat and emphasize quotes that people would rather &amp;#8220;go to jail&amp;#8221; than do abortions, you completely ignore all of the existing rules that already allow providers to choose not to perform abortions. I don&amp;#8217;t recall people rounding up Catholic hospital workers and hauling them off to jail prior to Bush&amp;#8217;s last minute rule, and it&amp;#8217;s not going to happen after it&amp;#8217;s rescinded. Gah. 
Thanks to Media Matters for pointing to this, and reiterating the actuality of the thing:
On the March 3 edition of Fox News&amp;#8217; Special ...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2239793</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:57:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2239793</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Taking on childhood obesity</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2241178&amp;cid=t_156541_140_f&amp;fid=35457&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fbattlingforhealthcom%2F%7E3%2F0KWNdXMJvuk%2F</link>
            <description>We have a common enemy and it&amp;#8217;s called children obesity. Let us look at the latest statistics for children aged 6 to 11 years old who are overweight:

non-Hispanic whites:16.9% of boys and 15.6% of girls
non-Hispanic blacks: 17.2% of boys and 24.8%of girls
Mexican Americans: 25.6% of boys and 16.6% of girls.

While the majority of the efforts fighting the obesity battle come from health advocacy groups, government agencies and not-for-profit organizations, it is great to know that corporate America also has a social conscience and has joined the battle. Two of these corporate initiatives are described below.
Obesity and advertising
The Council of Better Business Bureaus&amp;#8217; (BBB) Children&amp;#8217;s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative is fighting obesity at the consumer level. T...</description>
            <author>Battling-Schizophrenia</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2241178</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:13:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2241178</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Black Women’s Health Imperative on Obama’s Plans for the HHS “Conscience” Rule</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2239794&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F04%2Fblack-womens-health-imperative-on-obamas-plans-for-the-hhs-conscience-rule%2F</link>
            <description>In the news this week, the Obama administration plans to overturn the Health and Human Services &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; rule pushed through in the last days of the Bush administration. I have written a number of posts criticizing the rule both here and at Our Bodies Our Blog - for a quick catch-up, here are 10 reasons why I opposed the rule. 
Today, the Black Women&amp;#8217;s Health Imperative has released a statement applauding Obama&amp;#8217;s intent to rescind the rule. They write:
The Black Women’s Health Imperative (Imperative) commends the Obama administration for taking action to rescind the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) provider refusal or “conscience” rule. Issued in the final days of the Bush administration, this harmful regulation, driven more by ideolog...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2239794</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:26:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2239794</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama to Revise or Rescind Bush Conscience Clause?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2222384&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F02%2Fobama-to-revise-or-rescind-bush.html</link>
            <description>It was a given that the Obama Administration would attack the &quot;Bush Conscience Clause.&quot; And that process has begun. But it may a revision rather than a rescission, and indeed, perhaps one I could support. From the story:The administration took the step because the regulation was so broadly written that it could provide protections to health care workers who object not only to abortion but also to a wide range of health care services, said the HHS official, who asked not to be named because the process had just begun.&quot;We've been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written it could make it harder for women to get the care they need. It is worded so vaguely that some have argued it could limit family planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care,&quot; the of...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2222384</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2222384</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Declarations of Non Cooperation with Washington Assisted Suicide</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2222391&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F02%2Fmore-declarations-of-non-cooperation.html</link>
            <description>Right is right and wrong is wrong--regardless of legality: Another hospital has opted out of Washington's assisted suicide law. From the story: Sunnyside Community Hospital will not participate in the state's new Death With Dignity Act that takes effect next week, a decision likely to be followed by other hospitals in Yakima County...In announcing the hospital's decision Wednesday, chief executive Jon Smiley said members of the board, medical personnel and local residents felt that &quot;this act does not meet the standards of a majority of people in our community.&quot;Assisted suicide shouldn't meet the standards of any physician or community. That realization will take time to reestablish after decades of &quot;death with dignity&quot; advocacy. But this is a good step in that direction. If enough health c...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2222391</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2222391</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Proof That Assisted Suicide Activists Will Seek to Force Doctors to Participate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2194766&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F02%2Fmore-proof-that-assisted-suicide.html</link>
            <description>The culture of death brooks no dissent, I have repeatedly warned. That means the assisted suicide agenda, if it is widely successful, will one day seek to force all doctors to participate in the mercy killings of their patients--either by doing the deed personally, or referring them to a death doctor they know will write the poison prescription (or eventually, lethally inject the curare).More proof: Barbara Coombs Lee of Compassion and Choices (formerly Hemlock Society), is in a dither about the Bush conscience clause regulation that prevents employers from discriminating against medical professionals who refuse to participate in assisted suicide (as one example) on moral grounds. From her blog: That meddlesome regulation encouraging healthcare workers to obstruct needed treatment consider...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2194766</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:28:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2194766</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Traditions Checklist - Tradition Two</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2177637&amp;cid=t_156541_151_f&amp;fid=36047&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FADozenSteps%2F%7E3%2FTNr0ia_eqdQ%2F</link>
            <description>From Silkworth.net ;
Tradition Two: For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving GOD as HE may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
*****

Do I criticize or do I trust and support my group officers, AA committees, and office workers? Newcomers? Old-timers?
Am I absolutely trustworthy, even in secret, with AA Twelfth Step jobs or other AA responsibility?
Do I look for credit in my AA jobs? Praise for my AA ideas?
Do I have to save face in group discussion, or can I yield in good spirit to the group conscience and work cheerfully along with it?
Although I have been sober a few years, am I willing to serve my turn at AA chores?
In group discussions, do I sound off about matters on which I have no experience ...</description>
            <author>A Dozen Steps</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2177637</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:28:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2177637</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>News Round-Up</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2113336&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=34445&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwomenshealthnews.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F01%2F18%2Fnews-round-up-2%2F</link>
            <description>All the content from HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt&amp;#8217;s blog has been removed, with the note that &amp;#8220;The Secretary&amp;#8217;s Blog will be available soon as a historical record in the HHS Archive.&amp;#8221; Here&amp;#8217;s hoping that archive includes all the posts that blatantly misrepresented the &amp;#8220;conscience&amp;#8221; issue, especially the dodging of birth control concerns, the comments, and the licensing issue. Because it would be a shame if Leavitt&amp;#8217;s misleading and erroneous claims were disappeared. 
Check out the Amplify site, &amp;#8220;a project of Advocates for Youth, is an online community dedicated to sexual health, reproductive justice, and youth-led grassroots movement building.&amp;#8221; 
I Heart Guts is recalling their plush uterus because the ovaries may be pulled off and prese...</description>
            <author>Women's Health News</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2113336</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:28:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2113336</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>11th Hour Legislation Facing Legal Challenge</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2113643&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F515761667%2F11th-hour-legislation-facing-legal.html</link>
            <description>In a not at all surprising move, the so-called Conscience Rule passed at the last possible minute by the Bush Administration, has been legally challenged. Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, filed suit on behalf of his state, as well as California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. Separate suits have already been filed by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.For those that missed the ruling, which went into effect in December, the Conscience Rulestops federal funding to any health organization -- public or private -- if it doesn't allow health professionals the right to refuse to perform or take part in any health care services they consider objectionable on ethical, moral or religious grounds. This includes things as diverse as providing abortions, ...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2113643</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:38:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2113643</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>&quot;Choice&quot; is a One Way Street</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2112157&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F01%2Fchoce-is-one-way-street.html</link>
            <description>As I have often said, the culture of death brooks no dissent. The Bush &quot;conscience clause&quot; regulations protecting health care workers from being discriminated against in their employment for refusing to participate in medical procedures with which they disagree on religious or moral grounds, has been attacked in court by six states. From the story:In filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is seeking an injunction to stop the Provider Conscience Rule from taking effect. The lawsuit also asks the court to invalidate the regulation.Blumenthal said the rule would allow health care providers or pharmacists to deny a patient medical care without explanation or offering the patient a referral or information on alternatives, upsetting the balance between health providers' religiou...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2112157</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:19:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2112157</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Thoughts on Conscience Clauses as Way to Protect Dissenting Health Care Professionals</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2073788&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2009%2F01%2Fmore-thoughts-on-conscience-clauses-as.html</link>
            <description>I have written before--and no doubt will again--that the death culture brooks no dissent. I haven't gotten my mind totally around why this is yet, but I have developed some theories. I think issues such as assisted suicide are part of a (partially unconscious) but clearly unfolding coup de culture. Part of it too, perhaps, is that culture of death adherents are hypersensitive to the charge of supporting moral wrongdoing, and hence want all of us to be complicit in the system--a big reason in my view why the science community had a conniption over the Bush embryonic stem cell policy. Add in that many believe individuals will not be truly free to control their own lives unless virtually all impediments to abortion--and perhaps one day, assisted suicide, and other policies--are removed, and w...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2073788</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:16:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2073788</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Opposing Conscience Rights: Driving Dissenting Health Care Professionals Out of Medicine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2065192&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F12%2Fopposing-conscience-rights-driving.html</link>
            <description>The voices that yell loudest about &quot;choice&quot; tend to be the very ones that most enthusiastically seek to stifle it when they involve decisions about hot button moral issues with which they disagree. The St. Louis Post Dispatch is one such voice. Its editorial page weighed in today against the new federal rule protecting health care workers against discrimination for refusing to perform medical procedures they deem immoral, such as abortion or assisted suicide, a matter we have already discussed here at SHS.I have opined that the a primary goal of opposing conscience rights is to drive people of certain moral persuasions completely out of health care. And indeed, the Post Dispatch proves my point. From the editorial:Michael O. Leavitt, the Bush administration secretary for Health and Human S...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2065192</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:21:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2065192</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Doctors Refuse to Dehydrate Italian Woman: The Fight Over &quot;Conscience&quot; Has Begun</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2060836&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F12%2Fdoctors-refuse-to-dehydrate-italian.html</link>
            <description>I believe that the issue of &quot;conscience,&quot; that is the right of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals not to engage in intentional life-terminating actions will be huge in the coming decade in bioethics. It has already begun in Italy after a father won the right in court to have his daughter's feeding tube withdrawn. But even though the EU Court has refused to save Eluana Englaro's life, no doctor in Italy will agree to participate in her intentional dehydration. From the story: Italian officials say they are taking a hands-off approach after a European court rejected efforts to block a father's efforts to let his comatose daughter die.Italy's ANSA news agency Tuesday said Beppino Englaro has been unable to find a clinic that will facilitate the death of his daughter, Elua...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2060836</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:06:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2060836</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Federal Rule Protects &quot;Conscience&quot; Rights Could Also Support Futile Care Theory</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2052563&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F12%2Fnew-federal-rule-protects-conscience.html</link>
            <description>The Department of Health and Human Services will publish its Final Rule tomorrow protecting the rights of conscience for health care workers who refuse to perform medical acts with which they morally disagree. The rule specifically applies to abortion and sterilization. But it also has a general clause that, as I read it, could apply to medical futility. From the Rule beginning at page 111:2) (d) Entities to whom this paragraph (d) applies shall not:(1) Require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by the Department if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.(2) Discriminate in the employment, promotion, termination, or the extension of staff or other privil...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2052563</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2052563</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>&quot;What It Means to be Human&quot; Podcast: Conscience Clauses</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2052564&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F12%2Fwhat-it-means-to-be-human-podcast_18.html</link>
            <description>In this edition of What It Means to be Human, I get into conscience clauses as a potential way for us to co-exist together, given our profound cultural differences over what I call &quot;an emerging culture of death.&quot; I conclude: I strongly support the rights of conscience for health care professionals regarding elective procedures, that is procedures that are not necessary to save life or to prevent serious physical health consequences for the patient. Such accommodations would seem to be in keeping with a multicultural and tolerant society. But the culture of death is not about tolerance: It is about cultural hegemony. Once its supporters perceive they are in control, they will work hard to punish dissenters because refusing to participate sends a clarion message that certain activities are j...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2052564</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:56:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2052564</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rights of Conscience: The Threat of the Freedom of Choice Act</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1990550&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F11%2Frights-of-conscience-threat-of-freedom.html</link>
            <description>I have been asked to comment on the Freedom of Choice Act, that would seek to impose a single federal standard on abortion regulations. I have not done so until now because I did not know enough about the details and wanted to wait until and unless it became a likely law.I still don't know much about the FOCA, but a columnist in Slate named Melinda Henneberger, discussing recent speeches by Catholic Hierarchs about an Obama Administration seeking to force Catholic hospitals to violate Catholic moral teaching, worries that passing the FOCA would blow up in all of our faces. From the column:And the most ludicrous line out of them [the speeches], surely, was about how, under Obama, Catholic hospitals that provide obstetric and gynecological services might soon be forced to perform abortions o...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1990550</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:21:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1990550</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Speaking Truth to Power: European Cases Presage Huge &quot;Conscience Rights&quot; Bioethics Fights to Come</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1968642&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F11%2Fspeaking-truth-to-power-european-cases.html</link>
            <description>Expounding further on a theme I began yesterday: Western culture is profoundly--and I think on several important bioethical issues. implacably--split about what is right and what is wrong. These issues range from abortion, to euthanasia, to embryonic stem cell research, to removing feeding tubes from people with cognitive disabilities, to personhood theory, to human exceptionalism.The intellectual elites and the holders of the leverages of political power (generally) support these agendas and activities, while opponents (again generally) tend to be from Main Street, faith communities, and constitute a minority within the health care professionals. Some disputants take their stand based on religious belief--or lack thereof--while others (including this writer) are adamant that universal hum...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1968642</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1968642</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Mercy Me:  No Birth Control for You...</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1901602&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F428808136%2Fmercy-me-no-birth-control-for-you.html</link>
            <description>Divine Mercy Care, a new drug store at a Chantilly, Virginia strip mall is putting its faith in an unconventional business plan: No candy. No sodas. And no birth control.I wonder if they sell Viagra? Or protease inhibitors or reverse transcriptase inhibitors? Or Halloween costumes? The list of possibly offending substances or items can go on and on....I can appreciate that conscience and morals of a health care worker should be considered, so long as patients are being cared for, not overburdened by long drives through rural towns and not being shamed for what someone presumes to be an immoral lifestyle choice. (Source: Women's Bioethics Blog)</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1901602</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:07:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1901602</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>&quot;I&quot; Statements vs. &quot;You&quot; Statements and the Continuing Drama of the Blog Comments.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1833462&amp;cid=t_156541_151_f&amp;fid=35793&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejunkyswife.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fi-statements-vs-you-statements-and.html</link>
            <description>In our most recent Group Conscience meeting for my Nar-Anon, we discussed a need to clarify our stance on feedback and crosstalk in our meetings. While it’s rare that these events occur, there are some folks who have felt criticized or felt like other group members offer advice that is unhelpful and unwanted. We have been noodling through some ways to clarify the wording, and I volunteered to take our Opening Statement and add a few sentences that clarify what we mean by “We do not give advice, dialogue, debate, or crosstalk” in our meetings.Read more at The Second Road. (Source: Heroin Addiction Codependence)</description>
            <author>Heroin Addiction Codependence</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1833462</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1833462</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Federal Regulation Favoring &quot;Conscience?&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1738960&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F08%2Fnew-federal-regulation-favoring.html</link>
            <description>The Department of Health and Human Services has a proposed regulation up for public comment that would apparently provide protection for doctors who do not wish to perform abortions. From the story:The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.Abortion foes called it a victory for the First Amendment, but abortion rights supporters said they feared the rule could stretch the definition of abortion to include birth co...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1738960</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1738960</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Gay Twist on Medical Conscience Issue</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1717080&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F08%2Fgay-twist-on-medical-conscience-issue.html</link>
            <description>This is a new angle on the right of patients to demand treatment and when doctors can say no. This time it involves a religious objection to providing artificial insemination for a lesbian.The doctor believed it was immoral to help a homosexual get pregnant and refused to participate, but referred her to someone else for the services. The new doctor was not covered by health insurance. The woman in question sued the original doctor and the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that anti discrimination laws trump religious objections. From the story:The ruling, based on a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against customers because of their sexual orientation, comes three months after the court struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage. &quot;This isn't just a win ...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1717080</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1717080</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pushing Back Against Futility: Rejecting &quot;Professional Autonomy&quot; as a Justification</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1708868&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F08%2Fpushing-professional-autonomy-and.html</link>
            <description>The drive to instill Futile Care Theory is back in high gear after a bit of a respite. But here's a pleasant surprise: One Eric Gampel, a bioethicist from California State University, Chico, pushes back against the concept of imposing &quot;professional autonomy&quot; in the futile care controversy in the journal Bioethics (no link). From the abstract:Despite substantial controversy, the use of futility judgments in medicine is quite common, and has been backed by the implementation of hospital policies and professional guidelines on medical futility.The controversy arises when health care professionals (HCPs) consider a treatment futile which patients or families believe to be worthwhile: should HCPs be free to refuse treatments in such a case, or be required to provide them? Most physicians seem c...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1708868</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:09:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1708868</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Futile Care Power Play in Canada: But What About Conscience Clauses?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1525931&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F06%2Ffutile-care-power-play-in-canada-but.html</link>
            <description>The doctors in the Winnipeg Samuel Golubchuk case are intent on showing his family and society who is boss. Two more have resigned rather than provide care. From the story:CBC News has learned that two other doctors--Bojan Paunovic and David Easton--have also said they will no longer care for Golubchuk.&quot;What I can tell you is that there are three critical care doctors who have recently resigned from the [intensive care unit] shift schedule at the Grace Hospital,&quot; said Heidi Graham, spokeswoman for the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. The WRHA is working with other physicians to ensure the hospital can continue to provide critical care despite the loss of the three doctors, Graham said.A few thoughts: First, this seems a power play to me--even though I have no doubt that the physicians s...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1525931</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:33:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1525931</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1310946&amp;cid=t_156541_86_f&amp;fid=36669&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffadelibrary.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F03%2F18%2Fpersonal-beliefs-and-medical-practice%2F</link>
            <description>from the GMC is guidance for medical staff that states  doctors must not allow their personal beliefs to compromise patient care. The guidance explores how doctors should deal with a range of dilemmas including abortion, the wearing of face-veils and male circumcision.  It also looks at patients’ own beliefs and how they can affect the doctor/patient relationship.  It aims to balance a doctors’ right to practise in accordance with their views and beliefs, and the patients’ right to receive timely and appropriate medical care. (Source: Fade Library)</description>
            <author>Fade Library</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1310946</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:18:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1310946</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Boxing, abortions and the GMC</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1309026&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=34595&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fnhsblogdoc.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F03%2Fboxing-abortions-and-gmc.html</link>
            <description>The GMC has been pronouncing on matters of conscience.— You must not allow any personal views about patients to prejudice your assessment of their clinical needs, [including] patient’s age, culture, disability, gender, lifestyle, marital status, race, religion, sexual orientation, or economic status— You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients unless those beliefs are directly relevant to their care— Patients may ask you to perform, advise on, or refer them for a treatment...to which you have a conscientious objection. In such cases you must tell patients of their right to see another doctor— You must be open with patients – both in person and in printed materials such as practice leaflets – about any treatments or procedures which you choose not to pr...</description>
            <author>NHS Blog Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1309026</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1309026</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Traditions Checklist - Tradition Two</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1252867&amp;cid=t_156541_151_f&amp;fid=36047&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FADozenSteps%2F%7E3%2F240420852%2F</link>
            <description>From Silkworth.net ;
Tradition Two: For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving GOD as HE may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
*****

Do I criticize or do I trust and support my group officers, AA committees, and office workers? Newcomers? Old-timers?
Am I absolutely trustworthy, even in secret, with AA Twelfth Step jobs or other AA responsibility?
Do I look for credit in my AA jobs? Praise for my AA ideas?
Do I have to save face in group discussion, or can I yield in good spirit to the group conscience and work cheerfully along with it?
Although I have been sober a few years, am I willing to serve my turn at AA chores?
In group discussions, do I sound off about matters on which I have no experience ...</description>
            <author>A Dozen Steps</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1252867</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:28:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1252867</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Yet another argument against conscientious objection by pharmacists</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1198709&amp;cid=t_156541_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F224068165%2Fyet-another-argument-against.html</link>
            <description>We've blogged before about the issue of conscientious objection by pharmacists, and it has remained a mystery to me about how pharmacists decide who should and should not be able to obtain certain...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] (Source: Women's Bioethics Blog)</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1198709</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:51:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1198709</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Timing A Group Conscience Meeting</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1097745&amp;cid=t_156541_151_f&amp;fid=36047&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FADozenSteps%2F%7E3%2F201195390%2F</link>
            <description>Tom B.&amp;#8217;s comment motivated the gray matter&amp;#8230;
He said;
&amp;#8220;I once read somewhere that a group conscience meeting can be called at any time, especially during a regular AA meeting as to keep the “Others” at the monthly home group business meetings “In check” with the group as a whole. I’ve studied the pamphlet on The A.A. Group…Where It All Begins and may have missed or overlooked something there.&amp;#8221;
Then he asked a few good questions. I have some thoughts on the first and invite your comments - please.
&amp;#8220;How and when can a group conscience meeting can be conducted and how to bring about a well-informed Group Conscience?&amp;#8221;
Simply my own opinion (?) but calling for a &amp;#8220;group conscience&amp;#8221; meeting during a regular meeting for the &amp;#8220;purpose&amp;...</description>
            <author>A Dozen Steps</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1097745</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:23:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1097745</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

