As a healthcare professional, you are among a group of frontline workers. Frontline workers are the backbone of effective health systems. In fact, according to Frontline Health Workers Coalition (2018), “frontline workers play a critical role in providing local context for proven health solutions, and they connect with families and communities to the health system.” Successful policy advocacy and creation is often encouraged by frontline healthcare workers since they are the individuals who interact with the consumers (patients) the most. Your knowledge and perspective are vital to policy and lawmakers as a voice for healthcare consumers and for providing validation/opposition to laws and policy. Recently the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced the “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The office’s stated goal is to “protect institutions and people who refuse to provide medical assistance based on religious objections.” As noted by HHS (2018), the office is intended to protect religious beliefs. As with most policies, there are opponents and proponents. In general, supporters advocate that the office will protect against religious discrimination while opponents believe the bill will allow for open discrimination against women and LGBTQ individuals. Information about the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division can be found at the following source: Conduct additional research on Conscience and Religious Freedom. For your Module 1 SLP assignment, you are to use reasoning (from a healthcare professional perspective) and ethical principles (i.e., Religious Ethics, Normative Ethics, Descriptive Ethics, Applied Ethics, etc.) to compose a 2-page letter to your local Congressman/Congresswoman either in support of or opposition to Conscience and Religious Freedom. This should not be opinion (e.g., avoid “I think” in your paper), but a supported analysis. Your letter should address the following: Note: You are not graded on your support or opposition, but rather your critical thinking skills in supporting your position, and application of ethical principles. You may also think about referencing pivotal Supreme Court decisions as well (review background cases and supporting information in the Module 1 Background). Frontline Health Workers Coalition. (2018). Who they are. Retrieved from

Introduction

As a healthcare professional, I believe it is essential to critically evaluate and provide analysis on policy and laws that impact the healthcare system. The recently announced “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is one such policy that has received both support and opposition. In this letter, I will utilize reasoning from a healthcare professional perspective and ethical principles to provide a supported analysis of this policy.

Analysis of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division

The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, as stated by HHS, aims to protect institutions and individuals who refuse to provide medical assistance based on religious objections. This policy has been advocated for by its supporters, who argue that it will safeguard against religious discrimination and allow for the exercise of religious freedom. On the other hand, opponents believe that the policy opens the door for discrimination against women and LGBTQ individuals.

From a healthcare professional perspective, it is crucial to consider the potential impact of this policy on patient care and access to healthcare services. The role of frontline healthcare workers in interacting with patients provides valuable insight into the potential consequences of such a policy.

Reasoning based on religious ethics can be applied to evaluate this policy. Religious ethics, in its various forms, guide individuals in making ethical decisions that align with their religious beliefs. While the policy aims to protect individuals’ religious beliefs, it is important to consider the impact on patients who may face discrimination or limited access to certain medical procedures or services due to healthcare providers’ religious objections. This raises questions about the balance between religious freedom and the responsibility of healthcare professionals to provide unbiased and equitable care to all patients.

Normative ethics, which focuses on moral standards and principles, can also be applied to assess the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. One key ethical principle is justice, which is concerned with fairness and equal treatment for all individuals. Analyzing this policy through the lens of justice raises questions about whether it ensures equal access to healthcare services and protects vulnerable populations from discrimination. It requires an evaluation of the potential consequences for women and LGBTQ individuals, who may face barriers to essential healthcare services if healthcare providers are allowed to refuse based on religious objections.

Descriptive ethics, which examines the moral values and behavior of individuals and societies, can provide valuable insight as well. It is important to consider the societal impact of this policy and the message it sends about the value and acceptance of diverse perspectives and identities. The ability of healthcare providers to deny care based on religious objections may perpetuate societal discrimination and marginalization against certain groups, which can have long-term consequences for public health and social cohesion.

Considering applied ethics, which focuses on resolving specific moral dilemmas, it is important to examine the potential conflicts that may arise between healthcare providers’ religious beliefs and their professional obligations. Healthcare professionals have a duty to prioritize patient well-being and provide evidence-based care. The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division raises questions about how to navigate these conflicting responsibilities, ensuring that patients are not unduly burdened or denied essential care.

In conclusion, the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division introduced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has garnered both support and opposition. From a healthcare professional perspective, it is essential to critically analyze the potential ramifications of this policy. Reasoning based on religious ethics, normative ethics, descriptive ethics, and applied ethics allows for a comprehensive assessment of the policy’s impact on patient care, access to healthcare services, and the principles of justice and fairness. As a healthcare professional, I believe it is crucial to consider the potential consequences and strive for a balance between religious freedom and providing equitable care for all patients.