The move of some institutions like Wheaton College and the craft Store Hobby Lobby, to object the coverage of birth control to their students due to violation of their religious principles has increasingly become a contentious ethical debate. In Wheaton College, all student health care coverage was terminated as a way of avoiding a violation of the Affordable Care Act regulations (Keim, 2013). Hobby Lobby craft store in Oklahoma with its self-described Christian principles suggested that they want to provide coverage for certain emergency birth control due to their religious values (Griffin, 2014). In line with the debate, several problems are largely associated with refusal of institutions to provide reproductive health services to their students and employees. Lack of reproductive health coverages can make it hard for women to afford and access care, which may lead to serious economic, health, and social consequences not only to women but also to families. Therefore, the move by several institutions to decline health coverage of birth control is unethical since it can lead to harm as well as undermines the benefits of individuals.
Bailey & Burch (2015) assert that institutions that employ strong ethical behaviors and criteria tend to employ frameworks for correct evolution. The framework employed by the institutions shows that they do not have strong ethical values since the action would affect the health outcomes of public both directly and indirectly. The result of their actions will directly constrain employees and their families as well as students. Consequently, the move will require workers to opt-in for contraceptive coverage, which means they have to cut off access to birth control for their covered family members. As such, it is unethical for the institutions to cut off health coverage for birth control since many people depend on the coverage, and they may be majorly affected by the action.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Institutions should not prioritize the religious beliefs and standings of their sponsors and founders over the health and well-being of their employees or students. Religious-affiliated hospitals, social service agencies, schools, and insurance companies employ and serve the regular citizens, and they must abide by the rules of the public (Bailey & Burch, 2015). Morally, it is not correct for employers’ religious belief to take precedence over those of their workers. If the exemption is expanded, millions of employees and students will be affected since their access to preventive health care is interfered with. In the case of Wheaton College, not only will thousands of students be affected by the opposition but also many employees and their families who depend on the coverage. Indeed, the opposition to the use of contraceptives is ethically wrong since it affects the public.
One major ethical value of an institution is to ensure that its employees are financially stable to ensure their effectiveness at work (Griffin, 2014). Therefore, objecting employees to their financial benefits on the basis of the use of birth control is ethically wrong. Employers do not have a right to contradict an employee’s use of their health benefits as well as their sick leaves and other aspects of their benefits and compensation. Hobby Lobby is one organization that objects access to the financial accommodation from the contraceptive coverage requirement, which is every wrong move. Furthermore, employees paying for insurance are paying for other services they expect never to use. Hence, allowing workers to choose specific benefits is ethically wrong, and it undermines the ability of insurance to pool the risks of employees.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires state-regulated health insurance and all nonfederal public employers to provide contraceptive health coverage to all their clients and employees for personal preventive measure. It is unjustified for certain institutions to contravene the requirements of ACA due to their own religious concerns, which do not benefit the employees. The exemption is likely to undercut the contraceptive coverage requirement for most women and their families as well as students, which may cause potential harm. Institutional ethics protect employees and students from any potential harm. Thus, the move by Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College is unethical since it undermines the standard of protection that should be provided. According to (Van den Hoven, Vermaas & van de Poel, 2015) emergency care is a vital subset in health services, which is normally administered separately. Medical ethics also prohibit objections in emergencies, especially time-sensitive services like birth control, to clarify that the health of patients should not be undermined. Therefore, it is unethical for institutions to object to the provision of coverage to health care services on contraceptives.
Despite the criticisms on the move made by Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby craft store on cutting out their contraceptives coverage, proponents argue that less access to contraceptives will lead to unintended pregnancies and other negative outcomes (Griffin, 2014). This would be an advantage especially to colleges that experience incidences of school dropouts due to unplanned pregnancies. They further argue that it would make women employees as well as female students concentrate more on their jobs and education since they would be aware of the consequences of unplanned sex. Contrary to their beliefs, objecting the coverage of birth control is unethical since contraceptives lessen the chances of women getting unnecessary pregnancies by offering them protection.
In conclusion, the decline of health coverage on birth control is ethically wrong since it may lead to harm, and it undermines the needs of the public. Employees, as well as students in any institution, are entitled to have access to health care coverage and protection from harm according to the ethics of many institutions. The move made by Wheaton College and Hobby Lobby Craft store to decline health coverage to the students and employees is a mean move that only benefits the personal interest of the stakeholders and employers. It is equally wrong since ethics requires social benefit for everyone, and the action will affect many students and employees. It is important for institutions to follow the right ethical behaviors, especially during the implementation of policies that may directly affect the employees as well as workers.
References
Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2016). Ethics for behavior analysts . Routledge.
Griffin, L. C. (2014). Hobby Lobby: The Crafty Case That Threatens Women's Rights and
Keim, A. A. (2013). The HHS Mandate and Religious Liberty: A Primer. Academic Questions , 26 (4), 429-437.
Religious Freedom. Hastings Const. LQ , 42 , 641.
Van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (2015). Handbook of ethics, values and technological design . Dordrecht: Springer.
