Category: United States

Christian Medical Association Responds to Its Federal Court Victory Upholding Medical Judgment and Conscience Freedom

News Release

Christian Medical Association

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2019 /Standard Newswire/ — The Christian Medical Association, the nation’s largest faith-based professional medical organization, responded today to their victory in federal court for the conscience rights of medical professionals. The case, Franciscan Alliance v. Azar, sought relief from a 2016 federal regulation that threatened to drive religious doctors out of practice if they would not perform gender-transition procedures that violate their medical judgment and beliefs. Today’s ruling struck down the rule.

CMA CEO Dr. Michael Chupp noted, “Today’s victory in our federal court case in Texas against government coercion means doctors can continue to exercise medical judgment and ethical care based upon sound medical evidence and Hippocratic standards of patient care instead of any ideology. As our national polling has proven, doctors of faith endeavor to care for all patients regardless of whether or not we agree with their choices or values. But we need the freedom to exercise medical judgment and conscience convictions in order to practice medicine ethically and to provide the best and safest care to our patients.”

CMA Vice President for Government Relations and Director of Freedom2Care Jonathan Imbody added, “We are thankful for Becket’s excellent representation of our membership and their cogent presentation to the court of the legal grounds for this decision, which included the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law provides essential protections against the current drive to replace religious freedom with ideological coercion, and we must resist all attempts to nullify the law and its protections consistent with our First Amendment.”

Becket is also currently fighting for the conscience rights of religious doctors on behalf of Dr. Regina Frost and the Christian Medical Association, in another case, New York v. HHS.

Freedom2Care conscience polling: www.freedom2care.org/polling

CONTACT: Margie Shealy, 888-230-2637, 423-341-4254 cell, margie.shealy@cmda.org

Assisted Suicide Case About Doctor Fired from Catholic Health Network Challenges Religious Freedoms

Newsweek

Jeffery Martin

Centura Health, a Catholic health care network in Colorado, fired a doctor who attempted to help a terminally ill man end his life. According to KDVR, the lawsuit filed against Centura will be going back to state court where questions about freedom of religion could be raised.

Dr. Barbara Morris wanted to prescribe life-ending drugs to Neil Mahoney, a 64-year-old with incurable cancer. Centura’s policies against assisted suicide allegedly violated state law. KCNC reports that after asking a state court to declare that she could not be sanctioned for attempting to help her patient end his life, Dr. Morris was dismissed from her position. . . . [Full text]

Distinguishing between elective abortions and other medical interventions

Joint response to ACOG

News Release

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Christian Medical Dental Association, American College of Pediatricians

As organizations representing over 25,000 medical professionals, we would like to correct the errors and assumptions of the recently released joint statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH).

We state unequivocally that there is a difference between elective abortion – a procedure done to ensure that a baby is born dead -and the separation of the mother and the baby in order to save the life of the mother. ACOG leadership is deceptively hiding behind the confusion about the meaning of the word “abortion” to imply that such treatments to save the life of the mother are the same as elective abortions.

A separation procedure to treat maternal pathology INTENDS to save the lives of both the mother and her baby if possible. In contrast, an abortion, which the general public understands to mean “elective abortion”, INTENDS to deliver a dead baby. That is why a baby born ALIVE after an elective abortion is called a “Failed Abortion”. The separation of the baby from the mother did not fail. What failed to occur is that her baby “failed” to be killed.

We are glad that ACOG and PRH leadership recognize what all pro-life obstetricians know – that sometimes treatments which result in the separation of the mother and the baby are necessary to save the mother’s life. However, ACOG and PRH leadership disingenuously imply in their statement that these life saving procedures are the same as elective abortions.

The ACOG leaders’ advocacy of elective abortion is out of step with the 85% of OB/GYN’s who do not perform abortions. Their extreme advocacy for elective abortion through birth does not represent the majority opinion of either ACOG membership, or the majority opinion of all the rest of the obstetricians and gynecologists in this country.

Respectfully,

Donna J. Harrison M.D. dip. ABOG
Executive Director
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Mike Chupp MD, FACS, FCS(ECSA) CEO
Christian Medical Dental Association

Michelle Cretella, M.D.
Executive Director
American College of Pediatricians

Click Here to Download PDF

Facilitating an unethical practice is unethical

Psychiatric Times

Madelyn Hisaio-Rei Hicks*

I am an adult psychiatrist who has worked in public sector psychiatry in the US and the UK. In both countries, physicians struggle with the ethics and professional meaning of legalized or proposed physician-assisted suicide (PAS). I was recently asked by an organization to host a CME course titled “Best Practices in the End-of-Life Options Act.” Passed in 2016, the Act legalized the practice of PAS in California.

My response to the invitation

Thank you very much for your invitation to join in providing a CME about “Best Practices in the End-of-Life Options Act.”the very serious and complex ethical and legal issue of PAS.

At one point in my 14 years of examining and writing about PAS and euthanasia, I thought that, even though I found PAS to be unethical, in situations where it became legal, perhaps the best that psychiatrists and other physicians could do would be to provide thorough assessments and treatment options for individuals requesting PAS. . . [Full text]

‘It should be treated just like every other civil right’: Top Trump health official looks to enshrine religious liberty

Washington Examiner

Kimberly Leonard

The Trump administration official who enforces civil rights protections in healthcare sees his work on religious liberty as his biggest legacy for the Department of Health and Human Services.

“There is a real problem out there of lack of respect for conscience and religious freedom that needs to be addressed and we are taking the concrete steps to finally address it,” said Roger Severino, 44, director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS. “And I think this is an awakening of sorts that has opened up people’s eyes, both in the healthcare industry and beyond, that this is a right that had been under-enforced, that people were being discriminated against and felt they had nowhere to turn, and now they have somewhere to turn. And it would be a shame if that door ever closed on them again.” . . . [Full text]