When dealing with issues related to health, life, and death on a daily basis, it's almost impossible to avoid controversy. From abortion to assisted suicide, physicians are caught in the middle of plenty of heated moral debates.
The latest comes out of California and pits the First Amendment against anti-discrimination laws. The California Supreme Court ruled this week against physicians who refused to perform an intrauterine insemination on a lesbian because of her sexual orientation. The OB/GYN defendant claimed that her religious views prevented her from performing the procedure and argued that the First Amendment right to freedom of religion protected her from prosecution.
Not so, according to the court. The judges ruled that it was a civil rights issue, no different than if the physician had refused to treat a patient because of race or ethnicity.
Physicians have come down on both sides of the issue. While many applaud the ruling because it reinforces the notion from the Hippocratic Oath that doctors should focus on the good of the patient, some have expressed concern about government entities telling them who and what to treat.
This case was fairly clear cut—California law includes sexual orientation in its civil rights protections. But there is a lot of gray area at the intersection of religion and medicine. What if a physician refuses to provide emergency contraceptives because of religious beliefs? What if a doctor objects to the use of stem cells? At issue is the proper balance between a physician's individual liberty and his or her obligation to a patient (particularly when receiving government funds).
Scholars and lawmakers have grappled with that balance for years, so providing an answer right now is a bit above my pay grade. But let's shrink the scope a little and consider the dynamics of a medical group or hospital.
Leaders have to deal with similar problems of balancing individual autonomy and group accountability. Suppose you are partners with or employing a physician who refuses to perform certain procedures. Should your group give the physician the autonomy to make his or her own decisions or attempt to set a policy and intervene?
If an individual physician's decision affects overall business or leads to a damaging lawsuit, it becomes everyone's problem. In fact, the California case escalated not because of a single physician, but because the overall medical group refused to provide treatment and advised the patient to find another doctor outside the group. The court's most conservative justice said in a separate concurring opinion that an individual doctor could protect against liability by referring patients to other doctors in their practice who did not share their religious objections.
If the group had been prepared with a physician willing to treat the patient or had a policy for dealing with the issue, it might have never gone to court.
These topics are not easy to address, particularly in a close-knit practice. But they become a lot more difficult to deal with after your reputation has been tarnished or a lawsuit has been filed.
Elyas Bakhtiari is a managing editor with HealthLeaders Media. He can be reached at ebakhtiari@healthleadersmedia.com.
Note: You can sign up to receive HealthLeaders Media PhysicianLeaders, a free weekly e-newsletter that features the top physician business headlines of the week from leading news sources.
After 15 months of negotiations and three strikes, union-represented registered nurses and two California hospitals affiliated with Sutter Health have reached tentative agreements on new contracts. Nurses at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center and Marin General Hospital will now vote on whether to ratify the accord, which their negotiating teams have recommended. The nurses did not get a master contract with all Sutter Health affiliates, which was their priority. But they said the tentative agreement was reached on "pivotal patient protections issues."
For months, the cost and availability of healthcare were daily fodder in the debate over which Democratic candidate would do a better job as president. But now healthcare has taken a backseat to the economy, the price of gas, and the war in Iraq as the top issues in the Presidential campaign.
The Washington Health Department has approved the sale of two Spokane hospitals to Franklin, TN-based Community Health Systems. The not-for-profit Empire Health Services is selling Deaconess Medical Center and Valley Hospital and Medical Center for $272 million. They have a total of 511 acute-care beds and treat more than 225,000 patients a year.
California officials are planning to appeal a federal judge's decision that blocked 10% cuts in Medi-Cal fees to doctors, pharmacists and other medical professionals. The 10% reductions took effect in July to a large network of doctors, dentists, pharmacists, adult day health centers, and others in the healthcare system. Some 6.6 million low-income people receive Medi-Cal.
The University of New Mexico's new Center for Life offers what officials call "complementary medicine" that augments modern medicine with practices and treatments that may go back thousands of years in other cultures. The philosophy has its basis in preventing disease, says Arti Prasad, MD, the center's director. The center's physicians work with yoga instructors, doctors of Oriental medicine, or hypnotherapists when treating patients.