It seems that the separation of church and state is not the only source of controversy in the media, but rather, the need to “separate church from stethoscope.” This refers to the need for medical professionals to separate their religious views from hindering their professional careers and decision-making. Apparently Guadalupe Benitez was refused service at a fertility clinic because she was a lesbian, giving her no other option but to go to another clinic for the same treatment. Insurance wouldn’t cover Benitez costing her thousands of dollars out of pocket and now she is taking the issue to court. (Article found here).
It’s a question of more than just civil rights, but at the same time, can medical professionals really be allowed to refuse treatment because of their faith? It would clearly be unconstitutional for a teacher to refuse to teach a child of a faith that doesn’t coincide with their own, but one can draw parallels to it.
If it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which many believe it may, the problem is that, in the end, the court will decide who is correct. Under the Constitution the professionals are allowed to hold their own moral values and if the Supreme Court rules that the patients come first there is a violation of the Establishment Clause. This ruling would favor the religious views of the patient’s. Under the Constitution, there is a said separation of church and state and these professionals are violating said separation by refusing to allow service to the patients.
Personally, I can’t decide how to take this case. People should have a freedom to practice whatever religion they desire, but where should the line be drawn? For those Christian medical professionals they believe that life starts at conception. “Thou shall not kill,” is one of the Ten Commandments and to aid in abortion would mean to aid in a murder that they will be judged in the next life. The government can’t force these people to compromise their “treasures in heaven” for the sake of something they believe is immoral to begin with. Regardless though by allowing this freedom of religion there is no freedom of religion from the other side of the argument. Patients should have the ability to freely exercise their morality and if they believe that life begins at birth then they should have the right to practice it.
Should it be like the army where the soldiers can conscientiously object and therefore be relieved of their obligations? The soldiers are endangering an entire country if they don’t serve. This rational could be applied to this case in a very personal sense. The medical professionals choice of practicing his or her own morals could possibly endanger the patient. The possible violations of both parties’ First Amendment rights make this case interesting. To a certain degree both parties are right, now it’s up to the courts to decide which one is more correct.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
If people really planned ahead when considering their future careers, they should be aware that they may run into situations that go against their beliefs, especially in the medical field. When one is choosing a field of medicine they should consider whether they are comfortable performing certain procedures, such as abortion and other reproductive measures, if not then maybe another field of medicine would be better suited for the individual. If they do find themselves in a situation where it is too late and they are faced with a situation of performing a procedure or not, they need to remember that they are doctors and the patient comes first not their personal beliefs.
I definitely think a patient should not be turned away on the basis of the religious beliefs of the doctor. That is without a doubt a violation of rights. I do believe however that if a doctor wants to conscientiously object on the basis of moral or religious grounds, it should be allowed and the patient referred to another doctor. I disagree with Lisa when she says that the doctor should just be able to put aside his beliefs. As a deeply religious person, it would be next to impossible to just cast that aside. There would certainly be other doctors at the clinic, or even at another clinic that could handle the duties.
The problem with going to another clinic is if insurance doesn't cover it. However, it is true that there should be more than one doctor at the current clinic and that the patient should be referred to that other doctor. The doctor is wrong in denying the patient the procedure altogether because of their own beliefs. On the other side, the doctor shouldn't be forced to go against their own religious morals.
This issue is definitely tough because there seem to be so many facets to consider. An African American individual cannot be denied the right to live in a certain apartment based on his race, but in many parts of the country a lesbian could be. This is a question of where civil rights and religious rights collide. If a person's religious convictions will be breached by a homosexual living in the apartment building they own should the be able to bar residence? There are many arguments that can be made from both sides and that is what makes the situation difficult. We are stuck somewhere between preserving individual rights and preserving the rights to freedom of religion. The case of the physician is only one of many scenarios that will play out. It will be interesting to see what type of precedent the court decides to set.
I disagree with Lisa. I think that doctor’s have the right to choose whether or not to perform certain procedures on a patient. If the doctor doesn’t want to perform the procedure, then they can recommend another doctor who might. Doctors are in a unique position where they are held to a standard of doing no harm to others as stated in the Hippocratic Oath. So, if they believe that a procedure would be doing harm to the patient, then they are entitled too and can deny doing the procedure. Just because that doctor won’t do the procedure doesn’t mean that another doctor will feel the same way.
What seems apparent here is that the distinction between action and belief needs to be hashed out a little more. I hate that people seem to want to force a separation of two very important senses of identity. On the one hand, I might be a doctor which means that I have a certain duty to perform my medical duties. On the other hand, I might have a religious conviction that seems much more important to me. How can someone be forced to accept that your job trumps your religious beliefs. As one chapter and verse puts it, "render to ceaser what is ceaser's." The separation between faith and action is arbitrary and is not real.
Post a Comment