Winnipeg, Manitoba
\n5 April, 2002<\/p>\n
In an editorial broadcast on CBC Radio on 7 March, 2002, Dr. Brian Goldman criticized Dr. Frederick Ross of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Dr.\u00a0Stephen Dawson of Barrie, Ontario. Dr. Ross had told his patients to\u00a0stop smoking or find another doctor, while Dr. Dawson had refused to\u00a0prescribe birth control pills or Viagra to single patients.<\/p>\n
It does not seem that Winnipeg\u2019s Dr. Ross believes that treating\u00a0smokers is wrong, nor that it would be wrong to refer a smoker to another physician. His public statements do not preclude the possibility that he would treat smokers on an ad hoc<\/em> basis (while standing in for an absent partner, for example).<\/p>\n In contrast, Dr. Dawson refuses to help single patients obtain birth control pills and Viagra under any circumstances, because he believes\u00a0that by doing so he would be a party to immoral activity (i.e.,extramarital sex). Dr. Goldman was more sympathetic to this position,\u00a0but criticized Dawson because he would not refer patients to other physicians who would prescribe the drugs.<\/p>\n Dr. Goldman recognized that his colleagues were acting for different\u00a0reasons, but in drawing his conclusions he failed to maintain this distinction or recognize its significance. It is one thing to refuse to\u00a0do something because it is inconvenient, difficult, frustrating, or pointless; it is quite another to refuse to do something because it is\u00a0wrong. Grasping this distinction is the key to understanding the difference between the case of Dr. Ross, which does not seem to involve\u00a0conscientious objection, and that of Dr. Dawson, which plainly does.<\/p>\n What some characterize as Dr. Dawson\u2019s inflexibility actually illustrates the normal human reaction to a request to do something\u00a0wrong. For example, a fifty year-old man who wanted to have sex with a\u00a0fourteen year- old girl might be refused the use a friend\u2019s apartment\u00a0for that purpose. Nor would it be surprising if the unco-operative\u00a0 friend also refused to refer the lecher to a more \u2018flexible\u2019 apartment\u00a0owner.<\/p>\n We see the same principle at work in criminal law. It is an offence\u00a0not only to commit a crime directly, but to counsel, aid or abet a crime\u00a0committed by someone else. Again: many people who engage in \u2018ethical investment\u2019 do so because they do not want to be implicated, even\u00a0indirectly, in business practices to which they object for reasons of\u00a0conscience, even if the practices aren\u2019t illegal.<\/p>\n Now, no one is suggesting that consensual extramarital sex between adults is morally equivalent to criminal activity. But when Dr. Dawson\u00a0refused to provide birth control for single patients, he reacted exactly\u00a0as an \u2018ethical investor\u2019 might react if asked to purchase shares in a\u00a0company that exploits child labour. He reacted exactly as an honest man would act were he asked to help someone lie or cheat. In other words, he\u00a0 acted as if extramarital sex really is wrong, and that its wrongness is not merely a matter of opinion or taste. That, in truth, is what has upset many of his critics; he has disturbed their repose in their\u00a0\u00a0comfortable pews.<\/p>\n Of course, one may criticize a physician for causing needless\u00a0distress to a patient by offering a poorly articulated or inappropriate\u00a0explanation of his moral position. But that was not Dr. Goldman\u2019s concern. Instead, he complained that Dr. Dawson had acted upon his own beliefs.<\/p>\n In fact, Dr. Goldman does exactly the same thing. He believes that he\u00a0does nothing wrong by providing single patients with contraceptives and Viagra, and he acts upon that belief by writing prescriptions. Why\u00a0should Dr. Goldman be allowed to act upon his beliefs by writing prescriptions, while Dr. Dawson is forbidden to act upon his by refusing\u00a0 to do so? Is it because “the true north strong and free” is afraid of\u00a0religious believers?<\/p>\n A physician who refuses, for reasons of conscience, to do something\u00a0he believes to be wrong – falsifying a diagnosis, amputating a healthy\u00a0limb, or prescribing contraceptives – does not force a patient to\u00a0conform to his moral code. He is not “imposing morality.” To see what\u00a0 “imposing morality” really means, watch this month when the Ontario\u00a0College of Physicians and Surgeons tries to force Barrie\u2019s Dr. Stephen\u00a0Dawson to give up his Christian convictions, on pain of professional excommunication.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"