Case: Right to Refuse to Participate in Abortion

Health care providers have the right to refuse to participate in abortions and can abstain from participating in abortions based on their conscience, religion, or moral belief. In Missouri case, Doe verses Peoler, the city was ordered to obtain the services of physcians and personnel who had no moral objections with being involved in abortions. Additionally the city was required to pay the pantiff's attorney's fees because of the deliberate disregard of the destitute woman's rights and the continuation of a policy to disregard and/or avoid the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion.

What are the ethical and legal issues in this case? The ethical issues raised in this case are the following: from the plaintiff’s perspective it may be ethical for her to follow through with her abortion since it may be for a life threatening reason such as her losing her life. Also, the person may believe it is not the right time to have a child since they may be too young, their parents or significant other opinions factoring into the matter. In addition the person may have been raped by an unknown person and doesn’t want to go through with having a child from an anonymous person not knowing his family health history, nationality, and the fact of not having the father in the child’s life. Ultimately autonomy plays a role in this woman’s decisions. On the other hand, the health care provider has a right to refuse to participate in abortions due to their on morals, beliefs, and conscience if they are not comfortable with the decision the patient wants as in this scenario so the caregiver should assist the patient with finding someone else to help the patient follow their wishes that hopefully were well thought out with other alternatives and consequences.

From the caregivers perspective they have a right to refuse to participate in certain aspects of patient care and treatment. In this case with Doe verse Poelker in Missouri, a conflict with the caregiver’s cultural, ethical, and/or religious beliefs. However, in an attempt to honor the staff member’s rights, a patient’s health must not be compromised which in a way is a way of being beneficence and nonmaleficence. If a caregiver cannot administer or refuse to administer care it should be addressed with an organization’s ethics committee for review and consultative advice. Things that can cause a conflict of interest would be blood products, taking place in elective abortions, and end-of-life matters like a respirator. Also, in my opinion if a caregiver is not going to provide the patient with the best quality of care then they should not participate in the patients care. The patient would most likely be better off seeing another health care provider in the office or going to a different health care provider office. Unfortunately, if a caregiver refuses to treat a patient he or she may be losing out on business as well as jeopardizing their reputation as a health care provider and the patient may spread the news about what happened to them and tell others not to seek care from that provider.