Conscience Clauses Revisted
MANDE AGREES WITH THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT?
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews - August 19, 2008 - Not long ago, we told you about the Bush administration’s plans to add a “conscience clause” condition for federal funding of reproductive health services. It was - and is - a change we support because it goes a long way towards correcting the abridgment of health care providers’ choice.
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a similar conscience clause - one that would have allowed health care providers to deny care to homosexuals. Given our position on the Bush administration’s conscience clause proposal, it probably seems obvious where we stand on the California issue.
Au contraire, nos freres.
While we advocate doctor choice with regard to reproductive services, we cannot support the same leeway with respect to healthcare for gays and lesbians, and therefore - for maybe the first time ever - we agree with the California courts.
Homosexuality, like any other major deviation from the norm, is a birth defect.
While reproductive health care often turns on the choices made by the women seeking it, homosexuals have no such autonomic determination. Of course, there’s always the well-founded red herring that a gay person can choose not to lead a gay lifestyle.
While certainly true, that’s neither here nor there, having no place in a discussion about doctors’ obligations to treat people who chose not to go against the grain of their identity.
Those are ripe and legitimate musings, but they’re ill-suited to be the basis of public policy decisions since they necessitate a consensus that a homosexual lifestyle is a choice.
We can’t realistically hope for a consensus on that point, but there is a dimension of this issue on which we can reach for a reluctant consensus - homosexuality as birth defect.
After careful consideration of all the facets of this issue, the most reasoned - and, paramount, the most humane course to take - is the recognition of homosexuality as a birth defect.
Paradoxically, this is the most divisive take, alienating homosexuals as well as the religious right. However, if we can get past the initial shock, both sides should embrace the pragmatic utilitarianism that characterizes the homosexuality-as-birth-defect position.
And that’s the hard part: getting past the initial shock. Frankly, we’re not sure that either side is capable of it, since it would require a detached intellectualism that the extremists on both sides are too shrouded in narrow-minded adamancy to engage.
Though we all know that you can’t please all the people all the time, our proposal comes damn close: Gays get to flaunt their gayness unfettered by governmental intrusion; anti-gays get to flaunt their anti-gayness unfettered by the politically correct mandate that homosexuality is normal.
Because it’s not normal - and that’s exactly why it should treated with humanity. Most people can admit that it’s not the norm because that’s blatantly obvious; the realization that it’s also not normal is a matter of great subtlety, the nuances of which can be picked apart only through honest and politically-incorrect contemplation.
Is there anyone else who is up for the challenge? We doubt it … but hey, anything is possible: today we agreed with the California courts.
Comments
By Silence Dogood on August 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Mande, some of the exact same reasons I disagreed with “conscience clauses” in relations to abortion also dealt with the fact that they created a horrible precdent regarding care and procedures in general. This attempt was a great example. However, you noted:
“While reproductive health care often turns on the choices made by the women seeking it, homosexuals have no such autonomic determination.”
Does that mean that as long as the moral behavior by the patient or required treatment is objected to by the doctor - and not related to a conscious decision by the patient - then the doctor should be able to withhold care. Surely there must be more than that. Otherwise the Dr. Jim DeMint’s of world would surely be wanting to withdraw any pre-natal care from un-wed mother’s to be, not to mention their kids after delivery, based on a perverted sense of “moral” reasoning.
By Rob W. on August 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
You’ve really outdone yourself on this one.
By notverybright on August 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I’d suggest Googling “troll” and “narcissistic personality disorder.” That will be my last word on this writer, because I’ve apparently been feeding the beast.
By Unbelievable on August 20th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Why should an individual be required to provide a service if contrary to their beliefs? Let the patient go to who is willing to provide a service.
Once again Mande wants socialism and supports it
By Silence Dogood on August 20th, 2008 at 9:25 am
“Why should an individual be required to provide a service if contrary to their beliefs?” Then don’t go into medicine working for the government or a public hospital.
By rick on August 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am
SD….no sense, please elaborate.
Within the military we a re required to sometimes squelch our beliefs for the greater good/orders. The question is, at what point does an employer have the right to force an employee to violate their beliefs? The court system the same? In the civilian sector, no one should be required to provide services they don’t believe in. We have an abundance of doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc. To force a doctor to do abortions, or a pharmacist to provide the morning after pill is wrong. There are other doctors and other pharmacists that will do the job. If this intrudes upon the employers business, then the doctor or pharmacist should find another employer with the same concerns/beliefs they hold. This concept of forcing someone to violate their core beliefs simply because you’re to lazy to shop around is just plain wrong.
By Mattheus Mei on August 20th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Rick the question then becomes - should the same hold true for doctors who disagree over the origins of homosexuality and their beliefs about homosexuality?
Mande you get a D for your efforts in trying to justify the California decision with your beliefs about Healthcare provider’s choice.
The better route would have been to argue the “inherent dignity of each human person” as reasons to make doctors treat a person’s illness regardless of any qualitative factor whether it’s gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, or religion.
The justification behind a conscious clause is not to exclude certain groups from health care whether they’re fetuses or full grown flaming queens, but to ensure that all are treated with the same dignity and opportunities available to them by healthcare providers who follow the hypocratic oath.
By Silence Dogood on August 20th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Rick, Mande’s point in the article sounded to me that she was against this particular conscience clause because it would have allowed people not to treat homosexuals (if that was not a choice and was actually something congenital) but was O.K. with the other conscience clause because it was based on conscious chohices made by the patient. I think that is probably not the most beneficial standard to use. Also, medical personell, like cops, fire fighters et cetera are often in situations where they may meet very morally repugnant people…even worse that homosexuals…and have to treat them. Should pharmacists be able, in your opinion, to withhold drugs from felons? EMT’s keep from providing CPR to people shot in drug related violence (or at least withhold treatment until getting proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person injured was an innocent by stander)?
There are places other than being employed by Uncle Sam that one has to make choices that may compromise their moral beliefs based on employment. Furthermore, unless we are in a draft, no one is forced into the military…it is after the job starts that you usually hear “you know what you signed up for.”
By baker on August 21st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, I think Mande’s logic is clearly off base. The question isn’t whether or not doctors should be allowed to refuse treatment to people they find morally troubling. S.D. is right — can a doctor then refuse pre-natal treatment for a woman pregnant out of wedlock?
I think the question is whether performing abortions is so dicey that it should constitute an exception. In my opinion, I can understand the need for an exception there. It’s not the same, in my opinion, as not giving care to someone.
Some liberals may disagree. But I think whether or not abortion should be made illegal, it’s certainly troubling enough that doctors shouldn’t have to carry out that procedure if they’re against it.
By Renee on August 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I understand that you are trying to speak as an ally but this, “Homosexuality, like any other major deviation from the norm, is a birth defect.” is highly offensive. This comment assumes that heterosexuality is the norm. Since sexuality is fluid this is a completely erroneous statement to make.
By rick on August 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Why don’t we label this to be another case of loss of freedom to follow our individual beliefs within the main framework of the constitution. The wonderful thing about our nation is, that we each should be able to follow our path to “lif, liberty and the persuit of happiness” without having to prostitute ourselves in order to earn a living. If I choose not to conduct abortions as a doctor, that is my right. If I choose not to treat aids patients, that again is my right. If my employer finds my beliefs are in conflict with their needs, then adjust must be made. We can “what if” until the cows come home, the underlying question is: As an American citizen, do you have the right to follow your conscience? Are you free to follow the dictates of your faith? Are you required to subliminate those beliefs when other courses of action are available?