Re: Wisconsin Assembly Bill 67

Testimony before Wisconsin Senate Committee
on Health, Children, Families, Aging and Long-Term Care
October 7, 2003

Leah Vukmir
State Representative

Full Text

Thank you Committee Chair and members for taking up this important piece of legislation.  I am here today to speak in favor of AB 67.

As you all know, I am a new member of the Assembly and as a practicing registered nurse and pediatric nurse practitioner with 23 years of experience, I also serve on the Assembly Committee on Health.  When AB 67 was being debated in our chambers in June of this year, I had been a member of this body for only 5 months.  Although it was a short time, I had already learned that a good deal of emphasis is placed on a freshman's first speech on the floor.  I was still working on my first piece of legislation and had just assumed that my first speech would be on that bill.  That all changed after I listened to the floor debate on AB67.  I felt compelled to speak then and I do so again today.

I signed onto this bill to protect health care professionals from employment discrimination, civil penalties and potential professional sanctions - health care professionals who choose to abide by their conscience.  This is what this bill is about - plain and simple.  Too many have tried to cloud this bill with emotional "what-if" scenarios and we need to get out focus back on the original intent.

Currently we afford heatlh care providers the opportunity to conscientiously object to participation in certain procedures.  AB 67 expands to include more activities and also provides health care professionals with protection from discrimination from their employers.

Many will say that it rarely ever happens that a health care provider is discriminated against and therefore the bill is unnecessary.  I have been fortunate in my 23 years to have never been put in this position, but that is partly due to the fact that I have worked in predominantly Catholic facilities.  I do know of colleagues in other settings who have been put in this position and who, out of fear, have not stepped forward.  Who knows how many others have done the same?

Our current experiences also assume that we are practicing medicine and science in a time warp.  We all know that is not the case.  We all know that advances in research arise each and everyday increasing the likelihood that health care professionals will be put in positions that do not agree with their conscience.  AB 67, then, can be seen as forward-thinking because it considers many new areas and advances in technology - from cloning to stem cell research.  The ethics of medicine are becoming increasingly murky and as such, health care providers must be given protection from discimination should they find certain activities inconsistent with their moral being.

During the floor debate I was surprised to hear some say, "All nurses and health care professionals opposed this bill."  Well, I am a nurse and I do not oppose this bill.  I support this bill along with many of my colleagues.  The professionals that I have worked with and continue to work with would in no way allow a patient's life to be harmed or endangered.  I would in no way allow a patient's life to be harmed or endangered.

I have heard some argue that this bill violates that nurse's code of ethics by granting them the right to walk away from patients in need.  I find that very hard to believe.  You see, I remember learning that code and I looked at that code as I prepared for my testimony today.  Section 5.4 deals with the issue of conscientious objection and clearly states that it is the nurse's duty to inform others in advance if they have moral problems with participating in the care of a patient.  It clearly states that the nurse "must communicate" those concerns to others in advance so that alternative arrangements for care can be made.  The nurse "is obliged to provide for the patients safety, to avoid abandonment and to withdraw only when assured that alternative sources of care are available."

I know that my colleagues would not violate that code AB 67 will not encourage nurses to violate the code.  Rather, it will protect them from discrimination should they object  - for the nurse's code clearly states that those who refuse to participate "may not be insulated against formal or informal penalty."  AB 67 will afford that protection.  I urge you today to vote in support of this important piece of legislation.