White K A
Stanford Law Rev. 1999 Jul;51(6):1703-49.
In this note, Katherine A. White explores the conflict between religious health care providers who provide care in accordance with their religious beliefs and the patients who want access to medical care that these religious providers find objectionable. Specifically, she examines Roman Catholic health care institutions and HMOs that follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and considers other religious providers with similar beliefs. In accordance with the Directives, these institutions maintain policies that restrict access to "sensitive" services like abortion, family planning, HIV counseling, infertility treatment, and termination of life-support. White explains how most state laws protecting providers' right to refuse treatments in conflict with religious principles do not cover this wide range of services. Furthermore, many state and federal laws and some court decisions guarantee patients the right to receive this care. The constitutional complication inherent in this provider-patient conflict emerges in White's analysis of the interaction of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and patients' right to privacy. White concludes her note by exploring the success of both provider-initiated and legislatively mandated compromise strategies. She first describes the strategies adopted by four different religious HMOs which vary in how they increase or restrict access to sensitive services. She then turns her focus to state and federal "bypass" legislation, ultimately concluding that increased state supervision might help these laws become more viable solutions to provider-patient conflicts.
在本短评中,凯瑟琳·A·怀特探讨了依照宗教信仰提供医疗服务的宗教医疗服务提供者与那些希望获得这些宗教提供者认为有异议的医疗服务的患者之间的冲突。具体而言,她研究了遵循《天主教医疗服务伦理和宗教指南》的罗马天主教医疗机构和健康维护组织,并考量了其他持有类似信仰的确宗教提供者。根据这些指南,这些机构维持着一些政策,限制人们获得诸如堕胎、计划生育、艾滋病咨询、不孕不育治疗以及终止生命维持等“敏感”服务。怀特解释说,大多数保护提供者拒绝与宗教原则相冲突的治疗的权利的州法律并未涵盖如此广泛的服务范围。此外,许多州和联邦法律以及一些法院判决保障患者获得此类治疗的权利。这种医患冲突中固有的宪法复杂性在怀特对第一修正案的自由行使条款和确立条款以及患者隐私权之间相互作用的分析中显现出来。怀特通过探讨由提供者发起和立法强制实施的折衷策略的成效来结束她的短评。她首先描述了四家不同的宗教健康维护组织所采取的策略,这些组织在增加或限制获得敏感服务的方式上各不相同。然后,她将重点转向州和联邦的“绕过”立法,最终得出结论,加强州监管可能有助于这些法律成为解决医患冲突更可行的方案。