The Evangelization Station
Pray for Pope Francis
Scroll down for topics
The Freedom of Conscience in Relation to “Health”
IAIN T. BENSON
A student at the medical school at the University of Manitoba has been threatened with loss of graduation if he will not offer abortion as an option to a patient. In terms of the legal requirement, the issue is whether or not a physician is required to refer a patient for an abortion. The answer is “no.”
The folks who manage that superb website of the
Protection of Conscience
Project, sent out a note earlier this week about a student at the
medical school at the University of Manitoba. Apparently this medical
student has been threatened with loss of graduation if, because of his
stated religious reasons, he will not offer abortion as an option to a
patient. In terms of the legal requirement, the issue is whether or not
a physician is required to refer a patient for an abortion.
There is a worrying movement afoot to try and make health care workers into the mere instruments of a patients’ will subordinating the physician’s conscience to the demands of the patient. This movement must be resisted. When there is a conflict of consciences — or a conflict of dignities as it is ultimately best understood, we must have recourse to some other kind of principles than a “zero-sum” winner or loser scenario.
Without getting into the controversial question of how pregnancy could ever be a disease (and therefore a question of “health” at all) it is clear that no proper protection of conscience could force a person who believes abortion is murder to refer a person to another murderer. Sorry that this is put rather bluntly but that is how those who are opposed to abortion see things. That is the reality of why the Canadian Medical Association itself does not have a blanket “duty of referral” in the way that the University of Manitoba appears to be approaching the issue.
The conscientious objection, whatever ones’ view of abortion or whatever the controversial practice is, relates to the end point of the thing being sought and being part of the chain to the end point is the same, morally, as being the end point (i.e. the abortionist). This ought not to be too complicated for the administrators such as Dr. Magwood at the U of M to understand. If it is, they should call someone reliable in their philosophy department or, here’s a radical idea, the Canadian Medical Association or, perhaps, the World Medical Association, who also agree with the CMA that there is no blanket requirement to provide or refer for “all treatment options.”
The station that first carried this story, CJOB Winnipeg, recently carried the following question on an on line poll:
The answer is that he or she, in a free and democratic society, can only be required to tell a patient the following: “I am conscientiously opposed to abortion and will neither perform one nor refer you to another physician who will. If that is what you seek you must go elsewhere.”
End of story. Time for the University of Manitoba to change its (politically motivated) position or start saving up the hefty damages that will likely (and should) follow if it persists in its current course of action. I hope someone lets the student know that he is on much thicker ice than the administration if the issue is properly focused….
Benson, Iain T. "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Conscience Protection: The Freedom of Conscience in Relation to "Health". CentreBlog (March 19, 2004).
Reprinted from the Centre for Cultural Renewal's blog, "CentreBlog", with permission of the author, Iain Benson.
Iain T. Benson is Executive Director of the Centre for Cultural Renewal, an Ottawa-based "think-tank". He travels and lectures widely in North America and overseas on philosophical, theological and legal issues related to "strategic cultural renewal." Iain Benson is a member of the Advisory Board of the Catholic Educator's Resource Center.
Copyright © 2004 CentreBlog