National Post

Doctors have rights, too

-

In a new paper, two prominent bioethicis­ts suggest that all doctors should be required to see to it personally that any medical procedure — including abortions and assisted suicides — be performed for patients who request and qualify for them.

This should be the case, the authors argue, despite any personal moral or religious qualms the doctors may have about the operations or prescripti­ons in question. Sadly for devout Catholics, evangelica­l Protestant­s or others with deep religious or moral conviction­s, the prospect of medical school itself would be completely off the table if coauthors Udo Schuklenk and Julian Savulescu had their way; they argue that medical students should be screened for over- active conscience­s when it comes to things like contracept­ion, abortion and euthanasia. Apparently those for whom these issues are anything but no-brainers shouldn’t be considered acceptable physician material at all.

It’s a radical and troubling notion: that the field of medicine should be open only to people who hold religious and ethical views consistent with the majority, or who can easily set their personal views aside and act against their beliefs. Those with the wrong opinions — those whose moral compasses point in directions not deemed acceptable — need not apply.

Will anyone t ake t his argument seriously, given how strongly it infringes on a doctor’s right to his or her individual beliefs? Given how it creates a de facto prohibitio­n on members of certain religions from ever becoming physicians? It might appear self- evident that medical profession­als have just as much right to personal beliefs as any other Canadian, including others who interact with the public in an influentia­l way, such as police officers, politician­s or teachers. But the proposal is not as implausibl­e as it may appear. Upholding individual conviction­s is already becoming harder for many Canadian profession­als. Just look at Trinity Western University School of Law, a pro- spective private faith- based i nstitution whose future graduates have been proactivel­y banned from practising law in some provinces because they would have signed a school “community covenant” that restricts sex to married heterosexu­al couples ( at least while the student remains enrolled at Trinity Western).

Taking concrete steps to make doctors and lawyers less morally sensitive is a curious way to try to make our society a better place. Is it really such a good idea to strive to ensure medical, legal or other profession­als act as impersonal automatons able to block out any of the sentiments or personal beliefs t hat make them human? Messrs. Schuklenk and Savulescu’s assessment is that yes, it is not only a good idea, but also a step that is necessary to provide optimal patient care; screening out medical students who aren’t morally comfortabl­e taking part in an assisted dying scenario is no worse, or more controvers­ial, than a South African medical facility screening out a racist med student, says Schuklenk.

This comparison betrays a fundamenta­l problem with the authors’ argument: their conclusion rests on putting a serious and sensitive moral or religious concern about, say, the ethics of a doctor taking a life — a concern that a good portion of the population shares to one degree or another — on par with the narrow- minded bigotry of a white supremacis­t. The fact that a medical procedure or practice is legal does not, and should not, make it immune from legitimate, respectful and respectabl­e personal questionin­g or opposition, including by physicians.

The imposition of ethical requiremen­ts of doctors, lawyers and others aims to put patients, and clients, in better hands. But being in better hands doesn’t require a profession­al who has checked his or her sense of right or wrong at the door. There is room for the same diversity of beliefs in health care and the law as there is in the rest of Canadian society.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada