Gov. Doyle plans to veto legislation dealing with the right of health care professionals to refuse performing medical procedures or prescribe medicine and products that disagree with their moral views on human life, according to his press secretary.
Doyle feels that state Assembly Bill 207, known as the Conscience Protection Act, oversteps the government's role in regulating individuals' health, according to his press secretary. The bill, which has passed the Legislature, "would protect health care providers and health care facilities and their employees for refusing to participate in eight specific activities that destroy human life," according to a statement by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville), the main sponsor of the bill.
In essence, the bill makes it illegal for an employer to fire an employee for refusing to participate in any of the specified activities, which include assisting suicide and performing abortions.
Critics of the bill say it intrudes on patients' rights and elevates the beliefs of health care workers over patients' rights.
Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin said the legislation greatly exceeds the protections given to other employees in Wisconsin.
Marc Tuttle, communications director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said his organization supports the bill because it provides health care workers with the right to not participate in something that they feel is immoral. Tuttle said the bill does not violate patients' rights because they have the opportunity to seek care elsewhere.
Pro-Life Wisconsin wishes the bill covered even more than it currently would, Tuttle said.
State law currently protects health care workers from having to perform sterilizations and abortions. The new bill would expand protection to include assisted suicide, the use of embryos outside the body and the withdrawal of nutrition from non-terminal patients, as in the case of Terri Schiavo. Many of the activities covered in the bill are currently illegal in Wisconsin, according to the Hundertmark release.
The bill also would provide protection for pharmacists, who have not been included in previous legislation.
Pharmacists and other workers would be able to refuse to provide the eight services to a patient and would not be required to recommend another way for the patient to gain access to the service under the proposed law.
The American Medical Association, which does not include pharmacists, has enacted a policy that gives pharmacists the right to refuse to fill a prescription, but the patient must have a way of filling their prescription without harassment. This could include referring the patient to another pharmacy.
Controversy surrounding the topic came after a Wisconsin pharmacist refused to fill a woman's prescription birth control in 2002. According to reports, the pharmacist also refused to refer the woman to another pharmacy or inform her that she could have her prescription filled at an emergency room. The pharmacist was reprimanded by the state Pharmacy Examination Board in February of 2005.
After the incident, two bills were proposed, one forcing pharmacists to fill such prescriptions and AB 207, according to John McAdams, associate professor of political science. The other bill did not make progress in the Legislature.
The Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin has no official position on the bill, following the lead of the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board, according to Tom Engels, vice president of public affairs for the organization.
Engels said the organization supports the right of pharmacists to respect their religious beliefs, but is not issuing an opinion on the specific bill because it deals with two separate issues: giving pharmacists provisions when their profession contradicts their beliefs and the employment of those workers.
This article was published in The Marquette Tribune on October 13, 2005.