Firefighters who refuse to fight fires, police offers who refuse to make arrests and doctors who refuse to administer treatment — imagine how those decisions would disturb a functioning society. Thankfully, Governor Jim Doyle has vetoed the Conscience Protection Act, a proposed law that would have set the stage for a plethora of problems, starting with doctors.
The bill would have given health care professionals the option of refusing to perform certain procedures — most controversially, procedures such as abortion and sterilization — because of their moral or ethical beliefs. Passing a law like this would have endangered patients' lives and left the medical system in disarray.
Governor Doyle zeroed in on the crucial medical issue in explaining why he chose to veto the bill: "One of the most sacred principles of our medical care system is that a doctor should always do what is in the best interests of a patient's health. But this bill would allow a doctor to put his or her political beliefs ahead of the patient's medical best interest," Doyle said in a release.
The governor's decision to reject the bill also recognized a practical issue: it would have made finding health care even more difficult for those who already struggle to find medical professionals in their vicinity. The critical facts are that residents in many rural areas of Wisconsin often have only one medical professional nearby, and many small towns do not always have a choice of medical resources — meaning that many people are forced to rely on a single, general medical practice to provide a range of health care for their entire families. Had the Conscience Protection Act passed, these rural areas would likely be without doctors who were willing to perform certain procedures, preventing its citizens from receiving adequate treatment.
The Conscience Protection Act also lacked a very important protection. There was nothing in the bill that required medical professionals who denied treatment to patients because of their beliefs to refer patients to other sources of health care. More specifically, as Doyle noted, "It also contains no provisions to require the health care profession to advise patients of their treatment options, provide a referral for the patient, transfer certain patients, or render care if the patients' health or life is in danger." This cannot be consistent with a medical professional's duty to act in the best interest of the patient.
This bill also would have paved the way for other detrimental legislation regarding medical professionals and practices. For example, it would have aided the passage of the Pharmacists' Conscience Clause, a bill that would allow pharmacists to resist filling "controversial" prescriptions such as birth control pills. Although this bill is still pending in the State Senate, it is hoped that after Doyle's veto of the first Conscience Act, the Pharmacists' Conscience Clause will face tougher odds.
One of the main groups angered by Doyle's veto is the Wisconsin Right to Life organization. A press release from the group insinuated that Doyle is a pro-abortionist who does not care about destroying human life. But Doyle clearly cares immensely about just that. Had this bill become law, human life would be threatened by the refusal of health professionals to perform needed procedures or to refer patients to other sources of care. Governor Doyle deserves credit for a courageous decision.
Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
