Stem-cell research at UW-Madison has been drawn into a legislative battle over whether health care professionals can use morality as justification for withholding medical information and refusing to perform medical practices.
The state Assembly's Committee on Labor wrestled with this legislation in a hearing at the Capitol Wednesday.
The contested bill would ban employers from discriminating against employees citing moral beliefs as a reason to deny patients information about certain procedures, such as abortions or sterilizations, or not performing those procedures.
However, the language of the bill also includes protection for employees who do not want to do \experiments or medical procedures that ... use cells or tissues derived from the destruction of an in vitro embryo.""
Andrew Cohn, government relations director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF is a non-profit organization that generates revenue for UW-Madison by patenting the university's research innovations and then licensing them to private companies) explained to the committee that this bill could hamper the university's hiring practices when it looks for scientists to research stem cells at UW-Madison's WiCell Research Institute.
""To be required to hire a scientist who claims that human embryonic stem-cell research is immoral would mean that we may be required to hire a scientist who would have nothing to do,"" Cohn said. ""This scenario would be completely impractical.""
Cohn said he supported an amendment that exempted the law from companies whose primary business is one of the specific activities.
The bill's author, Rep. Jean Hundertmark, R-Clintonville, bristled at the notion that such an amendment would be necessary.
""Why would someone who is against [embryonic stem-cell research] want to be employed by WiCell?"" Hundertmark asked.
""To create trouble,"" Cohn answered. ""To make a statement. I can think of a wide variety of reasons why someone might try to work at WiCell Research Institute.""
Cohn was just one among a litany of proponents and detractors who argued for the necessity of the ""Conscience Protection Act"" or railed against the dangers of the ""Patient Abandonment Bill."" The rhetoric reflected the bill's contentious nature.
""It is unreasonable that a dedicated health care professional could be fired or demoted at their job for refusing to destroy human life,"" Hundertmark said.
Alta Charo, a UW-Madison professor of bioethics, speaking on her own behalf and not for the university, countered that the bill would legalize medical malpractice. She said health care professionals would not be punished for withholding needed medical information about legally available options to patients.
For example, Charo said a doctor with pro-life views could choose to not inform a parent of available childhood treatments like some common vaccines because they were originally made from fetal tissue of aborted fetuses.
""It is important to focus on the meaning of 'professionalism' and what we sacrifice as professionals,"" Charo said. ""We put our own views and needs separate and we put the interests of those we serve first.""
