A doctor at the Lankenau Medical Center, Dr. Joseph Bushra, requested a religious exemption from his hospital's mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy. Bushra’s specific position in the hospital's emergency department requires him to work in person with his patients on a daily basis, some of whom are carriers of the COVID-19 virus. The doctor feels that frequent testing and wearing a mask are proper accommodations that will prevent the spread of the deadly virus. In opposition, the hospital saw this as a high-risk situation. While the Main Line Health (MLH) organization offers medical and religious exemptions, they denied him on the basis that patients coming to the hospital are in a highly vulnerable medical situation. This resulted in Bushra suing the healthcare system for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).
The constitutional question at hand is whether it is a violation of Dr. Joseph Bushra’s free exercise rights to deny his request for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine. Or does the government have a compelling state interest in protecting medically vulnerable individuals from risk of contracting a deadly virus? Does the position of an individual matter when considering religious exemptions?
A comparable case, given the compelling state interest of the government to uphold national security and health, is Goldman v. Weinberger. In this case, an Orthodox Jewish individual in the United States Air Force was not allowed to wear his yarmulke while on duty. A yarmulke is a religious head covering worn as a sign of respect, but was refused due to the Air Force's strict policy regarding no headgear inside. The Supreme Court ruled that the Air Force did not violate the free exercise clause, as they must be examined with less scrutiny for their intention to protect the nation. Their policy is made to ensure orderly conduct and uniform attire, which cannot be contested in terms of our nation’s defensive line.
While I see both sides of the argument, I am leaning towards the side of the Main Line Health Incorporation. If Dr. Joseph Bushra were not a physician in an emergency room, the conditions of this case would be extremely different. While Bursha has the right to deny vaccination, he does not have a natural-born right to be a doctor in an emergency medical environment. There is a clear and present danger in having high-risk patients suffering from serious illnesses and at varying ages to be in the presence of an unvaccinated doctor who must also service patients with COVID-19. As someone who has acquired COVID-19 twice while taking the precautions seriously, Bushra’s claim that a mask is enough is inaccurate. If he worked in a different medical facility with a less susceptible environment or had a different occupation, I could understand the religious exemption. I’d argue that jobs in the medical field should be evaluated with less scrutiny in cases similar to this. Is the cost of a life worth a workplace religious exemption? There is a natural right to be alive, but not to be a physician in an emergency room.
Sources:
https://religionclause.blogspot.com/
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/241117np.pdf
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1097
9 comments:
I agree with your point. The denial of his free exercise by the hospital is a clear interest in the safety of the patients and the community around him for practicing his beliefs. Since Dr. Bursha is a physician at a hospital and is treating patients that could be immune-compromised, him not taking a COVID vaccine would directly affect his patients. Dr.Bursha wearing a mask is not enough if he is coming into direct contact with these patients constantly. This would affect the peace and good order of the community which I feel is more than enough interest in denying his Free Exercise rights to deny getting a vaccine
I agree with your position. The government has a compelling state interest in protecting medically vulnerable individuals. In this case, his position as Dr. Bursha's role as a physician is important to the court's decision. While Bursha has the right to freely exercise his religion, as a doctor, his job is to protect patients. By refusing to comply with hospital mandates, he presents a clear and present danger to his community. In other instances, I think accommodations are an acceptable solution. However, offering Dr. Bursha accommodation is too high of a risk in a hospital setting.
I agree as well. The compelling interest in keeping society safe and healthy outweighs the religious objections in this case. The role of being a doctor means that he must protect his patients, so I think the facts here are very important. If the job requirements did not include being around vulnerable individuals, then I think a religious accommodation would be much more appropriate.
I agree with your position on this case. The distinction between religious freedom and job requirements is important. While Dr. Bushra technically has every right to his religious beliefs, working in an emergency department with vulnerable patients changes this right slightly. Patient safety is a compelling state interest, similar to the precedent in Goldman v. Weinberger. When weighing religious accommodations against harm to immunocompromised patients, the hospital made the correct decision to ensure the highest duty of care for the patients, which are the first priority. I especially liked your point that there is a "natural right to be alive, but not to be a physician in an emergency room." Dr. Bushra is free to practice his religious beliefs, he just cannot do so while continuing to work at the hospital.
I agree with your position in this circumstance, Payton. The fact that Dr. Bushra is working in an emergency department with vulnerable individuals alters his rights significantly, for this instance. Dr. Bushra's right to religious exercise comes second to his patient's health and safety.
I agree that Dr. Bushra must comply to safety protocol despite religious objections especially since he is working face to face with patients. Covid was a pandemic that greatly affected the United States and the world so there is a compelling interest for the hospital to overlook free exercise rights and enforce vaccination requirements. As a doctor, he must be expected to follow health protocol in order to protect the patients he works with. I liked your point discussing how he is not entitled to be a doctor. If he is going to overlook basic safety of his patients (despite his job being to help people), he should choose another profession.
I agree. Given Dr. Bushra’s occupation as a doctor working in the emergency room, he is coming into contact with severely compromised patients. As it has been stated, the precaution of wearing a mask does not provide nearly enough protection to keep either Dr. Bushra or his patients safe. While I understand that the vaccine may go against his religious beliefs, by not taking the vaccine he is putting his patients in serious danger. In this case, the hospital is not trying to directly violate his free exercise rights, but rather protect their duty in providing healthcare and protecting their patients. Therefore, I think that the Court should rule against Dr. Bushra in this case.
I agree with the argument in favor of Main Line Health’s decision. Dr. Joseph Bushra’s position as an emergency room physician inherently involves direct contact with high-risk patients, including those vulnerable to COVID-19. While religious exemptions are important, the compelling state interest of protecting lives in a medically fragile environment outweighs his claim. The denial ensures patient safety and reduces potential exposure. In this specific context, public health priorities must take precedence over individual religious accommodations which I would consider a qualifying compelling state interest.
Post a Comment