The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

A Right of Conscience

Must professionals be required to abide by liberal nostrums on issues of life and death?

(Page 2 of 2)

The real "cultural conquest" comes from those who believe that there is no moral code by which anyone is bound. Or, more accurately, who believe that everyone should be bound by their code of moral relativism.

Still, even a finely tuned conscience will not lead everyone to come out the same on controversial issues. Many moral judgments are judgments.

Issues like sterilization and birth control will divide even Christians. Acts that primarily affect the individual (sex by an unmarried) and another person (abortion) have different moral consequences. Some roles are indirect, diminishing any moral culpability, such as driving someone to an abortion clinic rather than performing an abortion, for instance.

Other than a unique circumstance where one's refusal might risk a life -- perhaps a Jehovah's Witness physician unwilling to perform a blood transfusion -- there is no reason to force people to act contrary to their conscience. If state licensing is valid, it is to promote quality, not suppress morality.

Yet, the moral-minded have no right to trump their employers. Professionals have been seeking statutory protection for their right to refuse to perform and have been suing companies when dismissed for refusing to perform.

But a firm should be free to demand that those it hires to provide certain services actually provide them. A good employer is likely to try to accommodate conscience-stricken employees.

There is no reason, however, to assume that doing the right thing will always be costless. Indeed, one reason we laud people who make tough moral decisions is that they are willing to pay the price for doing so.

The public square has become a brutal battleground over conflicting moral visions. The worst thing to do is to politicize issues that could be left private.

Over some issues there is no compromise -- ultimately, our society must decide the legal status of the unborn, for instance. But many other questions, such as who prescribes Viagra and who fills the prescription, should be left to people to sort out voluntarily. The result might be messier, but we will be freer and our society will be healthier as a result.

Page:   12

topics:
Health Care, Abortion, Military

About the Author

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and the Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).

Letter to the Editor Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Articles

More Articles by Doug Bandow

More Articles From Another Perspective

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/07/27/a-right-of-conscience

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

Greg Sowards Battles Queen RINO

Jeffrey Lord | 5.24.12

We Have To Do Something

Ben Stein | 5.24.12

The Problem With High-Mileage Cars

Eric Peters | 5.24.12

Big Mack Attack

Larry Thornberry | 5.24.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

ADVERTISEMENT