Patients' Rights? Not So Much.

I was going to post something about the whole pharmacist v. patient bullshit, but I’m crabby, and Linnet has already posted something excellent at Big Brass Blog upon which I couldn’t improve, anyway.

I love how "religious freedom" has been redefined as the freedom to deny people basic healthcare if they don't follow your religious beliefs.

It's also interesting that they specify that individual healthcare providers have this right, not only institutional ones. So not only are you allowed to form your own We Hate Women and Gays Pharmacy--you're also allowed to refuse to treat women and gays while you're in the employ of the Decent and Sane Pharmacy.

This type of legislation raises some interesting questions.

[…]

If a conservative Christian is a healthcare provider, can he refuse to treat a woman without her husband's permission? The Bible does say that the husband is the head of the wife, after all.

[…]

How about if we apply this principle outside the realm of healthcare? Does a biology teacher have the right to refuse to teach evolution? Can a Hindu work at a fast-food place but refuse to serve beef? Can a Republican politician refuse to lie?

Or, you know, maybe we could all exercise our common sense and say that if your conscience gets in the way of an integral aspect of your work, you should choose another line of work.

I’m sure that’s far too sensible to ever happen. Especially when allowing healthcare workers to pick and choose their patients will allow those who will accept commonly discriminated-against patients to raise their fees, and allow the insurance industry to hike up their premiums, too. I mean, hey—what greater health risk is there than being someone a whole slew of doctors refuses to treat? Wankers.

Read the rest here.