One of the last spasms from an outgoing Bush Administration was a ruling that allows doctors and other medical professions to opt out of certain medical treatments if they violate a personal sense of right and wrong. It was aimed, of course, at medicos who oppose a woman’s right to choose an abortion. But it got me wondering if this ruling might have larger implications.
Suppose, for example, that a patient comes in with a venereal infection. If the patient is married, the infection probably came from out of marriage sex. Adultery! So does a medical profession who opposes adultery have a right not to treat that patient?
There are religions that think it is sinful to travel on certain days of the week or days of the year. If someone gets into a traffic accident on such days they are by definition sinners. Should medical professionals who feel strongly about this sinful behavior be forced to treat the sinner?
Druggists, of course, were another primary target of the Bush ruling. Specifically, those who might oppose morning after contraception pills. But again, think of all those maladies currently treatable with drugs you can legally buy at a pharmacy that might offend a druggist’s own moral sensibilities.
And hey, druggists aren’t the only moral people working in drug stores. How about the sensibilities of the clerk at the checkout counter. Why should he or she be forced to accept a customer’s money if it is being used for some means of contraception?
Why, indeed.
Morality is a tricky thing when applied to people doing what they are ostensibly being paid to do. Or to put this another way: if you ain’t up to doing the job, earn your living doing something else.