Wendy Cage, author of the upcoming book, Paging God: Religion in the Halls of Medicine, has up a terrific post up on Religion Dispatches about the HHS regulations that allow healthcare workers the right to refuse patients' care that will go into effect on January 18.

Cage looks into a 2007 study conducted by Farr Curlin, a physician at the University of Chicago who conducts research about conscientious objection in medicine. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is based on a survey completed by 1144 randomly-selected physicians who belong to the American Medical Association. According to Cage, it is "one of the first empirical studies of religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices."

The study discovered that the majority of respondents believed that physicians should not be compelled to provide care they found morally objectionable. But, the vast majority (86%) felt that objecting physicians were still responsible for providing their patients with information about all of their options (including information on options the physician opposes) and to refer a patient (71%) to another physician who does not have an objection if the care the patient seeks is what they object.

The HHS regs soon to take effect allow healthcare workers to deny patients information about their medical choices and also allows healthcare workers to refuse to refer patients to care they find objectionable.

And while only a minority of physicians participating in the study felt objecting physician didn't have to provide information about care they find objectionable (14%) or refer to services they won't provide (29%), the study discovered that physicians most likely to deny patients services based on personal beliefs (Physicians who were male, religious, and had personal objections to clinical practices) were less likely to believe that doctors must present patients with all options or refer for care they won't provide.

The findings of this study also reveal how dramatic the impact of the regulations may be. Cage writes,

"According to the researchers, more than 40 million Americans may have physicians who do not believe they need to present patients with all of the options when they personally object to a medical treatment. Nearly 29% of patients—close to 100 million Americans—may be cared for by physicians who do not believe they must refer patients to other providers in such situations.

These numbers should give us pause. Combined with the new medical conscience rule they make it even more important that Americans are proactive about their healthcare. Patients and family-members should select physicians carefully and consider questioning them about medical options and alternatives, especially when a practice is potentially controversial. We might consider talking with our physicians when we first meet them about their positions on issues that are important to us, to be sure we will get the care we want should it become necessary.

By not mandating that medical personnel be available to provide services when their colleagues object on religious or ethical grounds, the medical conscience rule privileges physicians’ rights of conscience over patients’ rights to treatment. Few Americans want physicians to violate their conscience. Even fewer want to be denied healthcare services as a result."

It's probably no coincidence that the Bush administration has chosen the Sunday before the inauguration as the day the regs go into effect, stymying women's health advocates' ability to immediately block the regulation or get any attention for it. Not to be deterred however, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) has launched a petition campaign against the regulations. Check back to our two-minute activist section for updates on other actions.