Taking good care of patients should always trump personal beliefs

Late last Friday, House Bill 303 was introduced to the House Judiciary Committee in Helena. There was over two hours of testimony from 10 proponents and 22 opponents, creating a cataclysmic dispute between the parties. So, what exactly is HB 303? I’ll explain, but buckle up, you’re in for a bumpy ride.

Basically, the bill allows medical institutions, providers and other health care employees to deny services based on their “ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or principles.” 

Proponents like the idea because, they say, the bill protects freedom of speech and religion when medical providers have an objection to providing certain services, including abortion and gender-affirming health care for transgender patients. Opponents object for similar reasons. And I’m concerned that the Hippocratic oath seemingly stands for nothing these days. 

In an article published on the Montana Free Press website on Jan. 30, 2023, Dr. Shaun Gillis, a obstetrics and gynecology specialist at Bozeman Health said, “I have been practicing for 20 years without doing a single abortion. I would like to continue doing so … Currently, my hospital doesn’t provide that procedure, but there have been discussions of doing that moving forward, and I’m a little bit concerned what that might mean for my employment status if I did not wish to provide those procedures.”

I guess I’m confused as to why that even matters. Shouldn’t the main concern be patient care? If someone is suffering from, for example, placenta abruption, pulmonary hypertension, ectopic pregnancy, severe preeclampsia or kidney disease, or lethal fetal anomalies, et cetera, and you’re a health care provider refusing treatment based on ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or principles, you’re probably in the wrong field.

Let me explain. If there is one thing that should always trump those morals and beliefs, it’s good patient care. And if someone is in critical medical danger, I expect the doctor to act in an exorbitant manner on behalf of the patient. But for providers that don’t agree, this bill would give them an “easy out” without any professional or legal ramifications. 

One interesting word that popped up surprisingly quickly in the bill is found in article (a) part two, and states, “discrimination” means an adverse action taken against, or a threat of adverse action communicated to, a medical practitioner, health care institution, or health care payer as a result of the medical practitioner, health care institution, or health care payer’s refusal to participate in a health care service on the basis of conscience, including but not limited to termination of employment, transfer from current position, demotion from current position, adverse administrative action, reassignment to a different shift or job title.”

Those seem like fairly appropriate consequences for a medical professional refusing to provide adequate treatment. It is, after all, their job. 

“The freedom to live and work consistent with one’s conscience is critical. It is at the heart of what motivates many who enter the medical field,” Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, said Monday when presenting her bill to the House Judiciary Committee. “Our profession is full of individuals who dedicate their lives to healing and doing no harm. And when we protect the rights of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to do no harm, we’re actually protecting the lives and health of patients as well.”

While I’m not a licensed health care provider, I did spend three years pursuing a psychology degree where I clearly recall having this moral thought to myself, and I strongly disagree with her ideology. For starters, “conscience” shouldn’t be a motivating factor in providing quality care. I think she’s a little confused on the definition of the word in this context. In this case, it’s not protecting the rights of the doctors and other professionals, it’s protecting their opinions, and that’s a very substantial difference. If the goal truly is to “protect the lives and health of patients” then that goal has to collectively help every patient – that, my friends, is conscience. This bill isn’t motivated by patient care, but rather, political agenda and separation. 

This is a newly introduced bill and I welcome any information, concerns, and feedback regarding the manner. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor with your thoughts.