it is not the job of health-care facilities and personnel to prevent deportations or otherwise make the job of law enforcement more difficult.

The American people voted for President Trump, in large part, because they want immigration law to be enforced across all of society. But many bioethicists think that health-care institutions should be uncooperative.

The Hastings Center is a core offender. It has just published its second major call in two months urging hospitals to defy ICE whenever legally possible. From “Plan, Safeguard, Care: An Ethical Framework for Health Care Institutions Responding to Immigrant Enforcement Actions:”

There have been several recent efforts to outline the ethical duties of hospitals and other health care settings on how to respond to actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other authorities concerning immigration enforcement in these settings. Here, we synthesize and build on those efforts, drawing on prior work by The Hastings Center, to create a practical ethical framework for health care institutions.

And what is that “ethical framework?”

Health care settings have historically been considered protected areas (also known as “sensitive locations”), where immigration enforcement was generally prohibited. Although rare examples of immigration enforcement had occurred in health care institutions, these were exceptions to historic enforcement practices. However, on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration rescinded the protected areas policy as part of a directive to expand immigration enforcement . . . This ambiguous and expanded reach of law enforcement creates confusion and  anxiety among health systems and patients and is expected to have a chilling effect as immigrant families seek health care.

Historically, when? The idea being promoted is similar to the archaic notion of “sanctuary” in churches where those on the run could not be arrested and receive asylum. But this is the 21st century. There are no sacred spaces in the sanctuary sense. Moreover, just because the Biden administration didn’t enforce immigration law aggressively, that doesn’t mean it is unethical to so do.

The article claims that hospitals have a “duty to plan” to impede ICE:

Key features of the duty to plan for encounters with immigration enforcement in health care institutions:

1. Establish lines of responsibility for interactions with authorities that ensure a point person for every shift.

2. Institute a “front door” policy, procedure, and training that details and reinforces how security officers and other staff should interact with immigration enforcement authorities.

3. Restrict access of immigration enforcement authorities to public spaces to minimize disruption to patient care. As much as feasible, identify and clearly label private spaces for patients, family, and health care staff only.

4. Limit cooperation to what is required by law and require proper identification and appropriate legal documents before complying.

5. Ensure protection and confidentiality of patient information, including through guidance concerning whether and how medically relevant information concerning immigration status (if known) should be reflected in electronic medical records.

Hospitals supposedly also have a duty to “safeguard” illegal immigrants, including, apparently, those employed by the hospital:

Health care institutions are major employers, and immigrants are a significant percentage of health care workers at all levels. During heightened scrutiny of immigration status, safeguarding the health care workforce is also important. Institutional, departmental, and unit-level leaders should be attentive to how uncertainty and stress may affect the workforce, ranging from concern about one’s own safety or that of family members to disparaging remarks about immigrants or whether they deserve health care. These leaders should, through their own communication and conduct, set the tone for a collective commitment to the mission of patient care while acknowledging how the inherent stresses of health care work may be heightened by immigration enforcement.

Wow.

Then, there is the “duty of care”:

This duty, often defined as nonabandonment, is foundational to ethical practice in health care. To faithfully care for patients is the core of health care professional identity. Being prevented from fulfilling the duty of care feels profoundly wrong. Health care institutions should support professionals’ ability to practice to standards of care and provide guidance and support for situations in which working to standards is undermined by factors such as insurance or immigration status. Institutions should also strive to uphold their duty of care to the neighborhoods, cities, or regions where they serve as health care providers and as employers.

Of course, anyone in a hospital should receive the medical care that their circumstances require. But it is not the job of health-care facilities and personnel to prevent deportations or otherwise make the job of law enforcement more difficult, including the administration of immigration law. But apparently, the bioethics movement — which promotes progressive politics behind a veneer of learned philosophical discourse — doesn’t see it that way.