If It Weren't Life and Death, We Should Strike

The site Big Government has posted audio from the Democratic senatorial contender for Massachusetts that, in essence, discriminates against Catholic medical practitioners. Headlines seem to be summing it up as "Devout Catholics 'Probably Shouldn't Be Working in Emergency Rooms.'"

Now, to play devil's advocate, I suppose there is a sort of logic to what she's saying. If you constructed an analogy, you might see how it plays out. From her point of view, she probably thinks it is no different from saying that Catholics getting involved in a profession that typically does things they find morally repugnant would be like Muslims working at a beer distributor or an Orthodox Jew running a bacon processing plant.

Or, I suppose I could grant her her argument if medical workers were refusing care based on a morality rooted in some kind of prejudice. Surely, we wouldn't want doctors who would, say, refuse to treat a patient because of their race or creed or lifestyle. If Catholics were refusing to treat gay men because they were gay, I'd agree with her. But that's not even remotely close to what happens when a Catholic refuses to prescribe or hand over an abortifacient.

The problem, of course, is that most analogies don't really hold up. We're talking medical care--which is more than just another industry or profession. Healthcare is that thing we're trying to reform, right? The one where there are complaints of incompetency, price gouging, and corruption? Why would you discourage competent, skilled doctors on the basis of moral belief?

On that note, should Catholic hospitals just shut down and get out of the business as well?

If people with moral convictions have no place in the emergency room, do emergency rooms have no place in hospitals with moral convictions?

Is that really going to help the healthcare situation? Close down all the good guys?

And does that really sound like a sound future for healthcare? Should the government stand up and say, "Okay, we'd like all the people who would refuse to perform an operation or distribute medicine based on moral reservations to leave the room. We only want people who have no moral reservations doing whatever we tell them."

I'm crossing my fingers for, MA. Here's hoping the seat goes back to the people.

h/t Jawa Report

Comments

[Akh Ari]

See, this is why it's helpful to be able to understand how some things based on natural reason even when we already know them from faith.

Of course, even rationalist Enlightenment thinkers did used to understand that there were moral and religious truths that reasonable men could attain without revelation. But the standing of human reason in public discourse has collapsed a lot since the heyday of the Enlightenment. I still say natural law arguments are important, because people aren't totally depraved - enough of them might be able to listen to reason.