An Assembly bill pitting patients’ rights against rights of doctors, pharmacists and other medical professionals who refuse to perform controversial operations encountered emotional debate at a public hearing Tuesday.

The bill’s author, Rep. Jean Hundertmark, R-Larrabee, said the measure provides protection for health-care professionals in the face of a new ethical environment. She added that there are a number of new medical technologies and research currently under development that raise professional “conscience” concerns.

“The bill simply gives the right to allow a person to say ‘no,'” Hundertmark said.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized most abortions in 1973, Wisconsin health-care workers have been allowed to opt out of performing abortions or sterilizations. This legislation would expand the list of procedures that they could refuse to participate in, including anything that destroys a human embryo or involves transplanting cells from such an embryo.

“It prohibits nothing,” said Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “It’s merely to protect concerns in areas such as conscience rights.”

Armacost added that the bill is necessary to protect health-care professionals and facilities that do not want to get involved in certain sensitive medical procedures such as abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Although Hundertmark said this legislation would not ban procedures or hurt health care, Sen. Chuck Chvala, D-Madison, disagrees.

“Clearly, they’re attempting to limit rights of abortion and women’s rights,” Chvala said.

Democrats argue that the measure is unnecessary, citing the Supreme Court decision and the illegality of suicide and euthanasia in Wisconsin.

The measure also seeks to protect health-care workers from professional and legal repercussions for refusing to grant a patient’s or family’s wishes to withhold food and water for terminally ill patients.

Opponents are very skeptical of this view of rights, however.

“The bill elevates doctors’ and health-care providers’ rights over patients’ rights,” said Chvala.

For example, pain medication, such as morphine, may be given to patients to reduce pain levels, but a doctor’s dilemma arises over whether or not to give medication if it might hasten a patient’s death.

Chvala said the bill is “cloaked” by right-wing legislators and Wisconsin Right to Life interests because they chose the phrase “conscience clause” in describing the bill, in order to gain favor in public opinion.

“They have a narrow-minded view on the legislation,” he said.

The Wisconsin Medical Society strongly opposes a section of the bill that protects a doctor from discipline if he or she chooses not to refer a patient, despite the fact that a patient has the right to an attorney for health care.

“This language creates bad policy and exposes ill patients who are most vulnerable to an inability to receive the care that the patient desires,” society representatives said in a statement opposing the bill.

“One of the basics of medical ethics is to do the patient no harm, whether it’s physical or emotional,” Mark Grapentine, vice president of government relations for the Wisconsin Medical Society, said.

He added that this issue is unique because of the society’s “unanimity” on this issue, but if the state Legislature changes the section, then the society, as a whole, would no longer oppose the bill.

However, individual members are split on other specific parts of the bill.

The bill, although modified, has been around through several sessions. Hundertmark said she hopes the Senate will vote on the bill this fall, although there may be some changes.

The bill passed the Assembly this spring and now waits to be presented before a Senate committee. It is expected to pass the Senate, but Doyle must sign it before it becomes law.