Catholic midwives win right to not help with abortion plans

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I defend the right to conscientious objectors not to engage in killing. But of course, if I'm a conscientious objector, I'm not going to join the military to work. Being a social worker entails advising a pregnant woman in chosing between, for example, having an abortion or having a risk pregnancy. That is something I would refuse to do, so I would never work as a social worker. Same thing for an obstetrician. On the other hand, not the same thing as, for example, being a doctor in Switzerland and be forced to, as part of his job, perform euthanasia (I don't think that happens, but I'm just saying). So there's not an obvious universal rule applicable, which makes legislating this dificult.

There are a few of factors at play here, now the least of which is the question of the relationship between these two women and the Health Board. Are these two women employees of GG&C Health Board, or are they professionals who bill for their services? The degree to which they are free to provide or withhold their services is grounded in the nature of their contractual relationship.

Assuming that they are employees, I think it is unfair to draw the analogy of the vegan in the slaughterhouse. They are midwives. They trained and took up their employment for the primary purpose of delivering babies, and protecting maternal and perinatal health--not performing abortions. But that point notwithstanding, if their employer offers abortion services to pregnant women, then in my view they are placed in the ethical position of fulfiling the terms of their employment or resigning. While I firmly support the right of dissent, I do not support the right to selective performance. If a requirement of your job is repugnant to you, your proper course of action is to leave that job, and allow someone who is capable and willing to do that job.

On the other hand, if they are professionals, they are free to pick and choose the kinds of work that they will do, so long as they do not agree to provide services to a patient, and then leave her high and dry without referring her to another professional who can provide the help that the patient is seeking.

Whether or not this is reasonable would seem, to me, to depend on what the job description was before these people signed up for it. If they knew that they'd be expected to assist in abortions, then they shouldn't have signed up for this job; otoh, if that was added in later, I can see where they might have some valid objections.

If the needs of the secular state are to rule ueber alles, then we must ban conscientious objection to military service. If the secular state says that someone must die, then there must be no grounds permitted for refusing to kill.

We can't afford to lose out on midwives. We have very few and it is not a profession which attracts many.

Therefore, it makes sense to allow them to opt out of a minor part of their job in the event that they disagree with it as strongly as many religious people do. I think they're wrong to disagree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that they do, and they may even think they will be damned to eternal punishment if they take part in an abortion.

Of course, we could create a new job called "birth midwife" or similar, and these people would be excluded from abortions, but that to me seems like unnecessary bureaucracy.

Do you not believe in freedom of religion? Why would you force somebody to violate their beliefs? Would you support forcing medical professionals to preform infant circumcisions against their personal beliefs?

It depends upon whether the physician in question is an independent contractor, or an employee.

Freedom of religion permits an employee to resign, and to set reasonable accommodations for religious observance. It does not, in my view, extend to permission to abdicate professional responsibility to provide care for patients.