History of Newsweek

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

To the Editor:

I agree with Dahlia Lithwick's contention in the December 15 article that South Dakota's law should neiither dictate that a medical professional should read a preprinted script to a patient terminating a pregnancy, much less one that expresses a moral opinion. As with any other procedure, a patient should be neutrally informed of its risks and benefits. My agreement with Lithwick''s article, however, ends there.

HHS's rght-of-conscience rules protect a health care provider's right to decline to perform procedures that they find morally objectionable, not to misinform a patient. These lines can be easily drawn for physicians and nurses. As for pharmacists, oral contraceptives and the morning after pill can be used to treat other medical conditions, and quite frankly pharmacists are not informed of a patient's diagnosis. Prehospital emergency medical providers do not participate in the termination of pregnancies, which makes the point moot, however, they may be summoned to the patient's residence after patient discharge should there be a rare complication from the procedure. Since that is not participation in the abortion itself, there can be no moral objection. Basically, Lithwick's fears in this area are unfounded.

Finally, I have one other concern: Lithwick"s use of the term "ambulance driver." Prehospital Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers should be either addressed as"EMS", "EMT's" or "Paramedics". The use of the term "ambulance driver" is degrading and shows Lithwick"s ignorance about a large part of the health care system. As a paramedic and educator, I find that offensive.

Valerie A. Schoen
22 Willow Circle
Hamburg, NJ 07419
973-209-8848
cell: 201-506-5154

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: medic1126 @ 01/04/2009 8:14:14 PM

To the Editor:

I agree with Dahlia Lithwick's contention in the December 15 article that South Dakota's law should neiither dictate that a medical professional should read a preprinted script to a patient terminating a pregnancy, much less one that expresses a moral opinion. As with any other procedure, a patient should be neutrally informed of its risks and benefits. My agreement with Lithwick''s article, however, ends there.

HHS's rght-of-conscience rules protect a health care provider's right to decline to perform procedures that they find morally objectionable, not to misinform a patient. These lines can be easily drawn for physicians and nurses. As for pharmacists, oral contraceptives and the morning after pill can be used to treat other medical conditions, and quite frankly pharmacists are not informed of a patient's diagnosis. Prehospital emergency medical providers do not participate in the termination of pregnancies, which makes the point moot, however, they may be summoned to the patient's residence after patient discharge should there be a rare complication from the procedure. Since that is not participation in the abortion itself, there can be no moral objection. Basically, Lithwick's fears in this area are unfounded.

Finally, I have one other concern: Lithwick"s use of the term "ambulance driver." Prehospital Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers should be either addressed as"EMS", "EMT's" or "Paramedics". The use of the term "ambulance driver" is degrading and shows Lithwick"s ignorance about a large part of the health care system. As a paramedic and educator, I find that offensive.

Valerie A. Schoen
22 Willow Circle
Hamburg, NJ 07419
973-209-8848
cell: 201-506-5154