Conscience Laws Detrimental to Medicine: Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Of all things these days, conscience and the right to have conscientious objection has become a huge and divisive issue in medicine. As I'm sure many of you watching are aware, a number of states have passed conscience laws trying to grant rights to doctors to refuse to do things that they don't agree with morally.
That's because many federal laws, such as the EMTALA law, which requires treatment in emergency rooms, have said that you have to do things that will stabilize a patient, and that might involve in some instances, an abortion, let's say, because the woman's life is in danger.
Conscience laws that some states — red states — have put through basically say, no, you don't have to do that , a nd your conscience should take precedence both over that federal law and over what the patient might need. What's best is you do what is moral for you, and we're going back that decision up, particularly if it agrees with what we, as the state legislature in conservative red states, want to see happen.
There are also blue state efforts to say that my state has banned something by law, and I don't want to see somebody put in a conscience statute so that I can do things that the legislature has said they're not going to allow, such as transgender surgery.
Conscience has become a strange battleground because people are using it to try to evade laws thatthey deem either too restrictive when there are approved medical treatments but doctors don't want to do them, or at the other end are way too liberal, forcing somebody to do something by law that, as a matter of their values as a physician, they don't want to do.
How do we sort all this out and where does conscienceleave us, as a physician or as a nurse, when dealing with patients? My view is very simple. I don't believe that state legislature should be telling doctors what to do or not to do when existing, approved medical treatments are out there.
If physician associations and groups agree that there are instances in which abortion is indicated, if there are situations in whichphysician groups agree that it is appropriate to remove a feeding tube from a dying person, if physician groups have consensus and say that the data show day-after pills are safe and they can be administered in a doctor's office or even by telemedicine, then I think it should be doctors who decide what's going to happen with their patients.
I think we've seen way too much push, both from the left and the right, to intervene with doctor-patient relationships. You may recall Florida once had a law proposed that said you can't discuss gun safety with your patients. That seems ludicrous to me. The legislature shouldn't be interfering in a public health matter like that.
Idaho and some other states are considering laws that say they're going to ban the use of messenger RNA (mRNA vaccines). That means they don't like COVID vaccination, but mRNA vaccines are the future of cancer treatment.
To put it another way, I'd rather have a doctor deciding what's appropriate for their patient than a person who's a real estate agent, has worked in farming, or has been a lawyer deciding, as a state legislator, what they think appropriate and medically useful care is going to be.
Conscience is important. There is no doubt that we want to respect what doctors and nurses think is right and wrong, but what ought to come before conscience is the patient's best interest. If something controversial is still in the patient's best interest, that's what I think physicians, nurses, and medical associations all ought to be fighting for.
Let's try to keep the state legislator out of the waiting room. Let's try to minimize the impact of politics on the practice of medicine, as it's going too far under the banner of conscience. Let's restore the integrity and, if you will, the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship.
I'm Art Caplan. I'm at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.Thanks for watching.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
Medscape
2 days ago
- Medscape
Restricting Kids' Cell Phone Use at School: Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hi. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, where I'm the head of the Division of Medical Ethics. The state that I live in, Connecticut, has seen some very interesting legislative proposals recently around cell phone use. Many other states — New York, New Jersey, and many others — are having similar Connecticut one, I think, is the furthest along of them all. It becomes important because I think parents ask questions about cell phone use for their kids. What should I be thinking? Should I restrict it? Is it dangerous? What should I do? The state of Connecticut wants to help. First, they've proposed legislation to pull cell phones out of schools — at least kindergarten up through high school — to get the cell phones taken away from the kids so that they're not distracted and that they're paying attention to the teacher and also engaged in social interaction. Even more radically, there's a proposal in Connecticut, a bill that would ban in young children from being able to access social media platforms, iPads, cell phones, or whatever between midnight and 6:00 AM. Is this a good idea? A colleague of mine at NYU, Jonathan Haidt, wrote a book called The Anxious Generation . He believes that the rates we see of teenagers who are now experiencing anxiety, which has increased from 2010 to today from 1 in 10 to 1 in 4; the number of teenagers experiencing depression, which has gone up from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5; and even death by suicide, one of the leading causes of deathfor kids aged 15-24, have to do with social media. Harassment, peer pressure, and getting stalked and bombarded with messages that attack self-esteem, target young people, and make them feel bad about their bodies can absolutely create mental health disorders. Is there sufficient evidence in his book?Do we have sufficient evidence from other studies to say for sure it's the cell phone or the iPad that somebody's looking at late at night? I'm going to concede that we don't. There's suggestive evidence, but not really many gold-standard studies that say, yes, it's the cell phone, iPad, or computerand where they are on social media. On the other hand, I support these legislative efforts, like Connecticut's, to get the cell phones out of school, to get kids talking to one another, to get them paying attention more, and to do what we can to get them off [of their devices] in the middle of the night. I would look at it this way.[Cell phones] may be causing problems by giving access to disturbing social media outlets. Let's face it, social media is a cesspool at this point, a sewer all over the place, and the companies that run it are doing nothing to self-regulate it. If we're wrong, the worst that happened is [kids] are not online for certain parts of the day. I know parents sometimes say, well, what about if there's a shooting or an emergency at school? I think we can manage that. You can absolutely have teachers with cell phones. The staff can have cell phones. It's not that there wouldn't be any ability to alert the police or to allow some communication as necessary with the kids.I don't think the rarity of a school shooting, as much as we worry about it, is enough to say, yes, let's let the kids just get lost all day long at school in their cell phones. I also understand why people are asking how this is going to really be enforced. Maybe it will be possible at school when you ask the kids to turn the cell phones in and lock them up or put them in a pouch where the teacher has the code or is that enforceable at home at night? One of the things missing, I think, from these efforts in Connecticut and elsewhere to decrease access by young kids to social media is the use of parental controls. I think some social platforms do a pretty good job saying before you give that cell phone to your kid or let them have their own computer, you're going to be able to program it with social parental discretion controls. Other platforms don't seem to care. Let's set some standards and expectations about what parents could do and would be able to do to restrict access at different times. It's going to take an across-the-board effort from parents, government requirements, and a willingness of people who control social mediato try to make sure that kids aren't getting in trouble, but we have to really start to take steps. We've got a problem in just saying there's nothing we could do about it, like the horse is out of the barn. That's not a response. I support the Connecticut effort. We'll see. I don't think federal government's going to be moving in this area anytime seem oriented toward deregulation. I think many states may, and I think that's something that, as physicians, we should try to support. Less access to social media at certain times of the day and night is not a bad thing for kids. I'm Art Caplan. I'm at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of for watching.
