Posted by Prof C on February 7, 2009, 2:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Octuplets"
132.239.208.141
A couple of comments:
First, re using someone else's body: No one is using the doctor's body by requiring him to do anything. The notion of using another person's body does not mean regulating their activity, it refers to physically taking or using their body or some part of that physical body for the sake of someone else. For example, were you to kill someone in order to distribute their organs to save other people's lives, that is using their bodies. With pregnancy, the mother is providing not herself (her personality, her subjectivity) but a part of her body or (if you wish) all of her body to keep this other being alive and developing. Requiring doctors to treat people is NOT using the doctor's body and more than, say, requiring a waiter or a waitress to serve food in a restaurant!
Second, at least in this country, we have laws barring discriminatory treatment under many--indeed even most--circumstances. If pharmacists don't like the idea of serving someone of another race, for example, it's just tough, they must do so by law or lose their license. Ditto for the pharmacy in which they work. So no, if you are working in a professional capacity, you do not have the right to refuse service to whomever you want. (unless you want to claim that these laws somehow violate an individual's right--but what right exactly are they violating? The right to be arbitrary??) The same would be true for the gun shop: depending on the state, such shops sometimes are not allowed to sell weapons to some people (e.g., minors or perhaps people with a record of violent crimes). But among those to whom they can sell, they can't refuse to sell an object just because they don't like the person's pronunciation or something.
So being pro-choice in the sense of wishing to facilitate the exercise of individual liberty doesn't mean that you are saying it's OK for people to act in ways that are discriminatory and harm others just because they want to. Nevertheless (finally, getting to the point!), the issue of dispensing certain drugs or performing certain procedures which involve questions of conscience are somewhat different. For example, a doctor or a pharmacist might well refuse everyone an abortion or a contraceptive without discriminating among those requesting this. They would not be acting arbitrarily, they would be acting out of conscience, i.e., I can't in good conscience cooperate in these activities. The problem is that requests for such services or products are normal and, according to our laws, legitimate medical requests, and people may really want or need them. In a city, where there are many pharmacies or in a health plan where many doctors are available, there is not a problem, the person needing the service can just go somewhere else. But in small towns? Or...there was, i believe, a point at shich Walmart was considering not carrying Plan B (the "morning after" pill) or some other drug having to do with reproduction. Nominally, it is the right of a retailer to stock the products it wishes, it has complete discretion here. But in rural areas, if Walmart doesn't carry something, often you can't get it at all from a trustworthy supplier.
One other thought: Would it make sense for the various fertility clinics that perform IVF to do so only if the couple or female agree ahead of time that they will consent to an abortion if more than, say, 3 fertilized eggs are present? I am not sure it would be enforceable. Or would it be fair to require such clinics to refuse IVF treatment if someone already has 4 or more children? You're not preventing people from having bigger families, just utilizing artifical means (IVF) for doing so.
16
Message Thread:
« Back to thread