AN INTERESTING PROPOSITION

September 3, 2008 Blog

Professor Richard P. Sloan, of Columbia University wrote an article that was published in the Press of Atlantic City on September 1, 2008. http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/145/story/244542.html

I can't allow his article to stand uncontested. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but by the same token, when I hear or read opinionated statements of faith from someone else, I am entitled to agree or disagree. In this case, I feel obligated to counter Professor Sloan on the basis of my own faith. If you quit reading here because you don't like to talk religion, please read at least the next paragraph.

Everything you do, say and think (also what you don't do, say or think) is a statement of YOUR faith. You may not like it, but it is very true and it is also important to think about this fact.

"DOCTORS MUST NOT PUT RELIGION AHEAD OF PATIENTS' HEALTH"

This is the title of the article I am referring to and not my own opinion.

Professor Sloan lauds the California Supreme Court for ruling against two physicians "who allegedly denied - based on their religious opposition - a legal medical treatment to a patient based on her sexual orientation. The decision was issued in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian against doctors in a Vista, Calif., medical group who refused to artificially inseminate her."

Here is my argument:

• First of all, the insemination of a woman, lesbian or not, is in my humble opinion, neither a "medical treatment" nor a health issue. How the Supreme Court of California could rule otherwise is a mystery - unless they had an agenda.
• Secondly, laws must be obeyed, but there is no law requiring a person - not even a doctor - to do everything that is legal. Why the courts should think differently must be explained.
• Thirdly, a medical doctor must consider the health of the whole person and not just that person's body or, as in this case, his or her personal wishes.

Professor Sloan probably got his job teaching "Behavioral Medicine" at the Columbia University Medical Center because he shares the same agenda as the California Supreme Court.

Sloan is offended that a "Pharmacy for Life" opened in a Washington DC suburb, that doesn't sell condoms, contraceptives or the "morning after" pill. He claims that pharmacies have an "ethical obligation to act in the interest of patients."

He further states that 14% of US doctors give their patients "substandard care" because they "believe that their religious convictions are more important than the well-being of their patients."

Sloan seems to equate "well-being" with whatever a person desires. A good doctor would hopefully have a different definition. A doctor's definition of a "patient" would also be vastly different from Sloan's. Sloan would definitely consider a woman who demands an abortion a "patient." Could a girl who wants her tongue pierced or a guy who wants his butt tattooed be considered patients for whose "well-being" the doctor is "ethically obligated?" 

Professor Sloan tells his readers about the intent of our founding fathers, who framed the Constitution. In his opinion, religious freedom is a person's right to be "free of religious domination by others."

I contend that the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the Constitution do not refer to entitlements. And "well-being" is not synonymous with health. Selling contraceptives and artificial insemination have nothing to do with personal rights or health.

Please, Professor Sloan, explain to me how refusing to artificially inseminate a woman or refusing to sell condoms can be considered "religious domination"! Is the refusal to sell pornographic material (often legal) "religious domination?" McDonalds refuses to sell alcoholic beverages here in America (they sell it in other lands). Are they infringing on the "rights" of their customers who need alcohol for their "well-being"?

I am neither a Roman Catholic nor am I opposed to the use of contraceptives, but I respect the rights of people who believe differently. I am not Jewish, but I respect the rights of those who keep the Sabbath and dietary laws. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, but I respect their religious refusal to serve in the military and to accept or give blood transfusions. A person of that faith would hardly choose a career as a surgeon or military officer. The Amish have horse and buggies instead of cars, and they do without electricity. I espouse no such convictions, but I would gladly fight (Amish refuse to serve in the military) to defend their rights to that life style.

Professor Sloan would likely say that my blog is "religious domination." Insisting that doctors do whatever the patient demands is also  "religious domination." It is just a different religion.