New VA policy sparks outrage as doctors may refuse treatment to Democrats and unmarried veterans alike
What exactly changed in the VA policy?
Live Events
Has the VA responded to the backlash?
What did the experts say about the policy?
Who could lose access to care under these rules?
FAQs
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
A new VA policy has sent shockwaves through both veteran communities and the medical community. The change, which follows a Trump-era executive order, has already raised serious ethical and legal concerns.A contentious policy change at the Department of Veterans Affairs allows VA doctors to refuse treatment to veterans based on their political beliefs or marital status. Critics describe it as discriminatory and dangerous.Psychologists, dentists, and a variety of other professions are also subject to the new regulations. The new regulations have already taken effect in certain VA medical facilities, as per a report by The Guardian.Executive order "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government" issued by the president on January 30 is cited by VA officials as the reason for the modifications.Regardless of race, colour, religion, or sex, medical personnel are still expected to treat veterans, and all veterans still have the right to care.However, since federal law does not specifically forbid it, individual employees are now free to refuse to provide patient care due to personal characteristics.VA hospitals have the authority to exclude physicians and other medical personnel on the basis of union activity, marital status, or political party affiliation. Impacted are certified clinical social workers, podiatrists, speech therapists, chiropractors, CNPs, and optometrists, as per a document, reported The Guardian.The executive order sought to deny the majority of government protections to transgender individuals. The VA no longer offers the majority of gender-affirming care and has prohibited the use of terms like "gender affirming" and "transgender" in clinical settings.The VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, responded to inquiries via email, saying that all eligible veterans will always be welcome at the VA and will always receive the benefits and services they have earned under the law.However, he did not dispute that the new rules allowed doctors to refuse to treat veteran patients based on their beliefs or that doctors could be fired based on their political affiliation or marital status.The new regulations were described as "extremely disturbing and unethical" by Dr. Arthur Caplan, the original head of the medical ethics division at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine.On the surface, it appears to be an attempt to exercise political influence over the VA medical staff, he stated.Veterans are worried about how new policies will affect their healthcare, especially those who are female, LGBTQ+, or reside in rural areas.To see a doctor, some people might have to travel more than a hundred miles, which could have a cascading effect. Because these changes were implemented without consulting the doctors in the system, medical experts are also worried about the process.Yes, under the new rules, VA doctors can refuse care based on factors such as political affiliation or being unmarried.Female veterans, LGBTQ+ veterans, and those living in rural areas are expected to be disproportionately affected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Iran's top security body to decide on Hormuz closure, Press TV reports
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Iran's Supreme National Security Council must make the final decision on whether to close the Strait of Hormuz following U.S. bombing raids, Iran's Press TV said on Sunday, after parliament was reported to have backed the has long used the threat of closing the Strait, through which around 20% of global oil and gas demand flows, as a way to ward off Western pressure which is now at its peak after the overnight U.S. strikes on its nuclear decision to close the strait is not yet final and it was not officially reported that parliament had in fact adopted a bill to that a member of parliament's national security commission Esmail Kosari was quoted on other Iranian media as saying: "For now, [parliament has] come to the conclusion we should close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision in this regard is the responsibility of the Supreme National Security Council."Kosari, who is also a Revolutionary Guards Commander, had earlier on Sunday told the Young Journalist Club that closing the strait was on the agenda and "will be done whenever necessary".Asked about whether Tehran would close the waterway, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi dodged the question on Sunday and replied: "A variety of options are available to Iran."The strait lies between Oman and Iran and links the Mideast Gulf north of it with the Gulf of Oman to the south and the Arabian Sea is 21 miles (33 km) wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lane just 2 miles (3 km) wide in either direction.
New Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
US strikes on Iran mark a dangerous turning point for the region and the world: Here's why
NEW DELHI: The American airstrikes targeting Natanz, Isfahan, and the fortified Fordow facility in Iran represent a dramatic escalation in the region's tensions. This could reshape the geopolitical landscape of West Asia, with wide-ranging consequences for diplomacy, regional stability, global oil markets, and India's energy security. What Are Iran's Options Now? Iran has several possible responses, each fraught with risk: Diplomatic De-escalation Iran could return to negotiations, potentially under the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the Trump administration previously abandoned. However, this route faces resistance from Iran's hardliners, who view the U.S. strikes as a humiliation and a betrayal of diplomacy. Tehran could also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Closure of the Strait of Hormuz Iran's most potent non-military leverage is the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow maritime chokepoint through which over 20 million barrels of oil and a large volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) pass daily. Iranian parliament has backed the proposal to close the strait while the final decision is yet to be made by Iran's top security body. The closure of Hormuz could trigger an oil price surge and widespread economic ripple effects. But this move would also harm Iran. Its own oil exports pass through Hormuz, and a closure would likely provoke military responses from Gulf Arab states and lead to further Western sanctions. Still, the threat alone could cause panic in energy markets. Military Counterstrike A more dangerous path is retaliation. Iran's military and political leadership have warned of striking U.S. military bases and naval assets in the region. Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, stated ominously: 'It is now our turn.' Iran possesses short-range ballistic missiles, drones, and naval assets that could be used in asymmetric attacks. The U.S., anticipating a reaction, has dispersed its forces and bolstered regional air defenses.
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
US Strikes On Iran Nuclear Sites Are Real-Life Test Of Hard Power's Limits
Vienna: US military strikes overnight in which President Donald Trump said Iran's main nuclear sites were "obliterated" will put to the test the widely held view that such attacks can delay a nuclear programme but not kill a determined push for atom bombs. As Iran's nuclear programme has expanded and become more sophisticated over the past two decades, many officials and nuclear experts have warned: You can destroy or disable a nuclear programme's physical infrastructure but it is very hard or impossible to eliminate the knowledge a country has acquired. Western powers including the United States have publicly suggested as much, complaining of the "irreversible knowledge gain" Iran has made by carrying out activities they object to. "Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge," the Washington-based Arms Control Association said in a statement after the US strikes with massive bunker-busting bombs on sites including Iran's two main underground enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow. "The strikes will set Iran's programme back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities, possibly prompting it to consider withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and possibly proceeding to weaponisation." Israel has also said it has killed Iranian nuclear scientists but, while little is known about the personnel side of Iran's nuclear programme, officials have said they are sceptical about that having a serious impact on Iran's nuclear knowledge, even if it might slow progress in the near term. The West says there is no civilian justification for Iran's enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade fissile purity. Iran says its nuclear objectives are solely peaceful and it has the right to enrich as much as it wants. Iran's nuclear programme has made rapid advances since Trump pulled the United States out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers that placed strict limits on its atomic activities in exchange for sanctions relief. After the US withdrawal in 2018 and the re-imposition of US sanctions, Iran pushed past and then far beyond the limits imposed by the deal on items like the purity to which it can enrich uranium and how much it can stockpile. Uranium Stock At least until Israel's first strikes against its enrichment installations on June 13, Iran was refining uranium to up to 60% purity, a short step from the roughly 90% that is bomb-grade, and far higher than the 3.67% cap imposed by the 2015 deal, which Iran respected until the year after Trump pulled out. The last report on May 31 by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that inspects Iran's nuclear facilities, showed Iran had enough uranium enriched to up to 60%, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. It has more at lower levels like 20% and 5%. The exact impact of Israeli and US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and materials has yet to be determined. In addition to the enrichment sites, the US struck Isfahan, where officials have said much of Iran's most highly enriched uranium stock was stored underground. One important open question is how much highly enriched uranium Iran still has and whether it is all accounted for. A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the US attack there. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state TV last weekend Iran would take measures to protect nuclear materials and equipment that would not be reported to the IAEA, and it would no longer cooperate with the IAEA as before. North Korea Looms Large The IAEA has not been able to carry out inspections in Iran since the first Israeli strikes nine days ago, but has said it is in contact with the Iranian authorities. What Iran will do next in terms of its nuclear programme is also unclear. Its threat to pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty hints at a race for nuclear weapons, but Iran has maintained it has no intention of doing so. The only other country to announce its withdrawal from the NPT is North Korea in 2003. It expelled IAEA inspectors and went on to test nuclear weapons. "Our biggest concern is that we end up with a North Korea scenario whereby these strikes convince the Iranians that the only way to save the regime is to go for the bomb. Nobody is bombing North Korea now, are they?" a European official said. Even if inspections continue, because of Trump's withdrawal in 2018 Iran had already scrapped extra IAEA oversight provided for by the 2015 deal. That means the agency no longer knows how many centrifuges Iran has at undeclared locations. The IAEA says that while it cannot guarantee Iran's aims are entirely peaceful, it also has no credible indication of a coordinated nuclear weapons programme. The Israeli and now US strikes have already raised fears among diplomats and other officials, however, that Iran will use those centrifuges to set up a secret enrichment site, since one could be built inside a relatively small and inconspicuous building like a warehouse. "It is quite possible that there are enrichment sites that we don't know about. Iran is a big country," a Western official said, while adding that Iran could also choose to bide its time. "In two years, if Iran were to start from scratch, they would only need a few months to reconstitute a new programme and to get back to where they were yesterday."
