"Moral refusal" to provide care provisions

[medic417]

Honestly in an emergency all callers that need an ambulance should be given emergency treatment. Ambulances do not perform abortions, same sex marriages, etc, we do treatment and transport to the emergency room.

Now on a transfer for non emergency treatment for something you find wrong why should you not be able to trade? The few minutes switching crews will not harm the patient, care is not emergent. To me it would be better that the individual trade rather than have the possibility that the patient not get the best care or even get into a debate with the patient. Course of wisdom is avoid anything that could become a problem.

As to judging a person and refusing because of thats persons choices in life that is wrong, even under the bible standards it is God's place to judge not mans. So I do not have to convert to transport. But if I'm required to be involved in a treatment I disagree with that is when the problems could begin.

 

[Veneficus]

In the end, this was a non-emergent situation. Just like any other service provider, non-emergent medical transport can be denied at any time for any reason by the company. Personally, I have my doubts as to how an elective abortion would be covered under a certificate of necessity necessary to gain proper reimbursement. Similarly, in the case presented by the OP, it is the providers right to refuse to care for a non-emergent patient. Similarly, it is that person's employer's right to terminate employment.

Even if not covered by necessity, the pt may have agreed to pay, probably cash up front. T

The employer may have the right to refuse, the employee may have had the right to refuse, but they were both wrong in my mind for not addressing the posibility of this conflict before it came up. It is not like it is unheard of.