|
Post by Rachael on May 29, 2008 20:31:31 GMT -5
*sigh* It's complicated, yeah? I agree with all of your points, actually. My feeling on what is "right" is that a doctor should be able to point-blank refuse to perform a procedure that he/she thinks is immoral, but that he/she shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets that procedure based on non-medical criteria. However...*sigh*... I would hate to get into the territory of having the law dictate under what circumstances a doctor, who is a highly-trained medical professional, must or must not perform a particular procedure. This case seems fairly cut-and-dried, but what about other, less clear cases? What if the patient was a 50-year-old woman, with no real medical issues, but who is nearly menopausal and, by some standards, "too old" to be a new mother? Or the case of a woman I actually know, whose insemination was cancelled because she'd developed five mature follicles, and the doctor said he "was not going to be responsible for quintuplets". Both of those can be seen as, at least partly, moral choices, and I'd like to leave the decisions in the hands of the doctors. Practically speaking, the lesbian in question should just find a different doctor, since this one clearly doesn't want to do the procedure, and wouldn't you want your doctor behind you 100%? But if it was me, I'd be outraged. And yet I think, in this case, though I personally think the doctor is a bigot, since the procedure is elective and there are large numbers of doctors without such convictions who will be willing to carry it out - the doctor should have the right to refuse. Yes, I think we are on the same page with this one. I can sympathize fully with the lesbian and I would be outraged if I were her, surely. I can also sympathize with the doctor, in the sense that if this genuinely triggers in him a sense that he is doing something that condones a behavior he believes to be immoral, then - why shouldn't he be allowed to refuse? I'm trying to more clearly see the dividing line between this and the "who you serve at the lunch counter" example, and I suppose it is around the fact that the doctor is NOT saying: "I won't do this because I think you are a lesser type of human than me, and I'm too good to associate with you," which was the basic idea behind the lunch counter discrimination. A person might legitimately suspect the doctor of holding that kind of feeling (as you say, you think he's a bigot), underneath it all, but who knows? It's not cut-and-dry. Ultimately, I think I have to go with your thought on this - that when it comes to these very tricky areas, if you must err, err on the side of freedom of choice and less government regulation, and allow the doctor to refuse. Thanks for your thinky thoughts. It gets a little more sticky when you consider that she was in a rural area, so there weren't a lot of clinics to choose from. But the clinic did refer her to someone without such convictions, and in the long run, she got pregnant and now has three children. If it was, say, abortion, I'd feel differently. I get infuriated when I read stories about rape victims who are taken to the nearest hospital, which happens to be Catholic, and are refused the morning after pill. It's just...it's not like they chose ANY of their situation, and the hospital then takes the one decision they have left away from them. I get that Catholicism is anti-abortion, but I think they ought to have to provide emergency contraception to rape victims nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 30, 2008 7:52:23 GMT -5
Yes, I think we are on the same page with this one. I can sympathize fully with the lesbian and I would be outraged if I were her, surely. I can also sympathize with the doctor, in the sense that if this genuinely triggers in him a sense that he is doing something that condones a behavior he believes to be immoral, then - why shouldn't he be allowed to refuse? I'm trying to more clearly see the dividing line between this and the "who you serve at the lunch counter" example, and I suppose it is around the fact that the doctor is NOT saying: "I won't do this because I think you are a lesser type of human than me, and I'm too good to associate with you," which was the basic idea behind the lunch counter discrimination. A person might legitimately suspect the doctor of holding that kind of feeling (as you say, you think he's a bigot), underneath it all, but who knows? It's not cut-and-dry. Ultimately, I think I have to go with your thought on this - that when it comes to these very tricky areas, if you must err, err on the side of freedom of choice and less government regulation, and allow the doctor to refuse. Thanks for your thinky thoughts. It gets a little more sticky when you consider that she was in a rural area, so there weren't a lot of clinics to choose from. But the clinic did refer her to someone without such convictions, and in the long run, she got pregnant and now has three children. If it was, say, abortion, I'd feel differently. I get infuriated when I read stories about rape victims who are taken to the nearest hospital, which happens to be Catholic, and are refused the morning after pill. It's just...it's not like they chose ANY of their situation, and the hospital then takes the one decision they have left away from them. I get that Catholicism is anti-abortion, but I think they ought to have to provide emergency contraception to rape victims nonetheless. I can see the government refusing to provide government subsidy or grant monies or some such thing, to a hospital or clinic who refuses to provide services in line with general secular standards. If you're going to insist on following the tenets of your religion, then I can see where you should "have to pay the price of that" by not expecting support from public coffers. I can't see the government being allowed to "shut them down" for such a thing, though. I can't agree that they "should have to do it" in any sweeping way. I think it gives the government too much power, in the same way that . . . letting religous beliefs decide the state shouldn't allow a gay marriage gives the church too much power. I can agree that the hospital should "have to do it" if they expect public moneys. But forcing it through a government regulation that says, "If you expect to do business in the USA, you must be willing to commit an act that is specifically forbidden by your church, is considered murder by that church, will get you excommunicated from your church, and that you believe will condemn you to eternal hell" seems a clear violaton of church and state. None of this stuff is easy; I can think of loads of gray areas and "what ifs" even as I type the words "clear violation." And things get tricky around the "public moneys" thing, too - with "what ifs" and grey areas that come to mind. I don't know. Mostly, I guess it is fair to say I am OK with the day-to-day ambiguity of it all, and not sure there is any way to truly perfectly balance the "church and state" thing. It's continual hard work, but work worth doing to try to optimize (not to perfect, because I don't think it is possible to perfect) the way we keep the country a place that both treats all its citizens with equal fairness and respect, yet allows individual, cultural, and religous freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 30, 2008 12:34:02 GMT -5
It gets a little more sticky when you consider that she was in a rural area, so there weren't a lot of clinics to choose from. But the clinic did refer her to someone without such convictions, and in the long run, she got pregnant and now has three children. If it was, say, abortion, I'd feel differently. I get infuriated when I read stories about rape victims who are taken to the nearest hospital, which happens to be Catholic, and are refused the morning after pill. It's just...it's not like they chose ANY of their situation, and the hospital then takes the one decision they have left away from them. I get that Catholicism is anti-abortion, but I think they ought to have to provide emergency contraception to rape victims nonetheless. I can see the government refusing to provide government subsidy or grant monies or some such thing, to a hospital or clinic who refuses to provide services in line with general secular standards. If you're going to insist on following the tenets of your religion, then I can see where you should "have to pay the price of that" by not expecting support from public coffers. I can't see the government being allowed to "shut them down" for such a thing, though. I can't agree that they "should have to do it" in any sweeping way. I think it gives the government too much power, in the same way that . . . letting religous beliefs decide the state shouldn't allow a gay marriage gives the church too much power. I can agree that the hospital should "have to do it" if they expect public moneys. But forcing it through a government regulation that says, "If you expect to do business in the USA, you must be willing to commit an act that is specifically forbidden by your church, is considered murder by that church, will get you excommunicated from your church, and that you believe will condemn you to eternal hell" seems a clear violaton of church and state. None of this stuff is easy; I can think of loads of gray areas and "what ifs" even as I type the words "clear violation." And things get tricky around the "public moneys" thing, too - with "what ifs" and grey areas that come to mind. I don't know. Mostly, I guess it is fair to say I am OK with the day-to-day ambiguity of it all, and not sure there is any way to truly perfectly balance the "church and state" thing. It's continual hard work, but work worth doing to try to optimize (not to perfect, because I don't think it is possible to perfect) the way we keep the country a place that both treats all its citizens with equal fairness and respect, yet allows individual, cultural, and religous freedoms. You make good points, and I think we mostly agree on them, upon reflection. The bits I'm not sure I agree with...I'm finding myself having trouble constructing a coherent, intelligent argument. So, Spring wins.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 30, 2008 12:35:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 30, 2008 12:47:38 GMT -5
I can see the government refusing to provide government subsidy or grant monies or some such thing, to a hospital or clinic who refuses to provide services in line with general secular standards. If you're going to insist on following the tenets of your religion, then I can see where you should "have to pay the price of that" by not expecting support from public coffers. I can't see the government being allowed to "shut them down" for such a thing, though. I can't agree that they "should have to do it" in any sweeping way. I think it gives the government too much power, in the same way that . . . letting religous beliefs decide the state shouldn't allow a gay marriage gives the church too much power. I can agree that the hospital should "have to do it" if they expect public moneys. But forcing it through a government regulation that says, "If you expect to do business in the USA, you must be willing to commit an act that is specifically forbidden by your church, is considered murder by that church, will get you excommunicated from your church, and that you believe will condemn you to eternal hell" seems a clear violaton of church and state. None of this stuff is easy; I can think of loads of gray areas and "what ifs" even as I type the words "clear violation." And things get tricky around the "public moneys" thing, too - with "what ifs" and grey areas that come to mind. I don't know. Mostly, I guess it is fair to say I am OK with the day-to-day ambiguity of it all, and not sure there is any way to truly perfectly balance the "church and state" thing. It's continual hard work, but work worth doing to try to optimize (not to perfect, because I don't think it is possible to perfect) the way we keep the country a place that both treats all its citizens with equal fairness and respect, yet allows individual, cultural, and religous freedoms. You make good points, and I think we mostly agree on them, upon reflection. The bits I'm not sure I agree with...I'm finding myself having trouble constructing a coherent, intelligent argument. So, Spring wins. I'm not sure I agree with all the bits myself, really. It kinda makes my head spin, and mostly, I am thinking outloud. With thinking about this kind of thing, I try to imagine that I have to vote on such an issue, and I try to figure out if ultimately, I would I vote yay, or nay. I would have some misgivings about either vote, so it's more a tottering decision about which seems "best overall." Anything else feels like a "doomed to failure" exercise in trying to take the gray paint, and separate it into black and white.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on May 30, 2008 12:49:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. Will watch it at home later. And - as always - thanks for the smart and interesting input.
|
|