Right of Doctors to Discriminate?
Last week non-religious doctors were lauded for helping the poor. Now comes another case of religion impeding certain doctors from helping certain patients. The Humanist Network News ran a story yesterday about doctors asserting their “right to decline.” More doctors, based on their religious beliefs, are refusing to perform abortions, prescribe the morning-after pill, perform artificial insemination, or even prescribe Viagra.
States are stronger in supporting doctors’ rights not to perform certain services than you might expect. Forty-six states permit the right to refuse to provide abortions, 17 states permit refusal to perform sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation), and 13 states permit refusal to provide contraceptives. Do doctors give up the right to act according to their conscience when they decide to become doctors? Can patients simply go to other doctors or is the embarrassment they suffer when being refused service or being lectured by a doctor too traumatic for patients?
The reason this is in the news again is the case before the California State Supreme Court. Guadalupe Benitez was refused a medical procedure, artificial insemination, because she was a lesbian patient even though the two doctors charged in the case readily provide artificial insemination to heterosexual patients. Other Californians say they were denied artificial insemination or other procedures because of their doctors’ objection to single parenthood.
The doctors in this case want to be able to chose who they will perform services for instead of as in the above issues, choosing what procedures they will or won’t do.
Kenneth Pedroza, the doctors’ attorney, counters that an “all-or-nothing” rule will drive physicians out of certain specialties. But this begs the question, what good is the world’s best heart surgeon to you if he won’t operate on gays and you happen to be gay? Why shouldn’t a doctor be forced at least to choose a specialty based on his religious convictions if he is then going to invoke those convictions to say what procedures he will and will not perform?
See Elaine Friedman, More Doctors Refuse Service Based on Religion and
Freedom of Religion or Discrimination?
Subscribe to Feed
Isn’t the heart doctor argument a straw man? The case you are arguing for is not a heart doctor and it was not a life-death choice. Not the same at all.
Was the doctor discriminating based on the patient being lesbian or based on the belief that a child is better raised with a mother and a father? I suppose you could argue the first possibility is “refusing treatment”, but could the second possibility not be argued as looking out for the best interest of the child? Granted, the definition of “best” may not agree with your definition, but isn’t that part of what ethical questions are about?
I hope it’s a straw man, but when you give someone the right to discriminate against someone based on the group a person belongs to you’ve given them that permission. The case in California the child would have 2 parents in as predictably stable a home as any other couple who might come in. So it could also be argued that her membership in a group, lesbians, is what made the doctors refuse to treat her and that is discrimination.
I mean honestly if we were going to let doctors decide who were the best parents in the best interests of the child you’d have a lot of couples being told they couldn’t have children or doctors being given the right to deny heterosexual couples service based on their belief that the couple wouldn’t be in the best interest of a child.
Now you can call that a straw man as well, but it’s about as logical as I think granting your argument that doctors should decide who is or isn’t likely to be a good parent based on their religious beliefs is.
If a doctor, or anyone else for that matter, is not allowed to pick their clients then are they not being pressed into involuntary servitude. Now I think these physicians are fools but they surely have the right to be stupid. You ask what good are they if they don’t perform surgery on someone who is gay. Well, for one they still perform surgery on others who surely are needing it. That reduces the case load in general making it easier for others, including gays, to receive treatment from other competent physicians who are not bigoted.
If were a house painter I might not have a problem working in a home that plays pop musice all day. But if they were 100% preaching from some fundy nutstation I might wish to refuse. I have arleady said I would work with the radio on but I won’t work for them under those conditions. Should I be forced to paint for them? How shall I be forced? How much force are you willing to use against me? Would you deprive me of my livelihood? In the end the alternative is either to allow people to voluntarily work with others or to specifically state how much force you are willing to use against them to coerce them into complying.
I don’t find that humanistic at all. Nor do I think it reasonable. As a humanist and an atheist my morals compel to leave others in peace. I have no inherent right to life of the physician and his talents and he has no right on claim on me except as we voluntarily wish to exchange or give.
I think CLS’s argument has a little more merit to it although I would say if a contract has been signed then agreeing to the work, you’re stuck. I think for doctors the problem is many people feel by agreeing to the first appointment or whatever that an implied contract is made so it’s kind of hard to establish how when the contract is made.
It also seems odd to give people permission to ask clients questions about sexual preference or religion when we wouldn’t allow them to ask a prospective employee the same questions.
I forsee a time when doctor’s and others might have to advertise based on religious or other preferences sort of the way some professionals currently use the gay yellow pages so that gay and lesbian clients know they’re gay friendly providers. While this is currently done voluntarily the idea that it would be done out of necessity doesn’t to prevent possible lawsuits doesn’t thrill me, but I’m not sure what other options we’re leaving providers.