Toronto, Ontario, Canada
\n23 February, 2002<\/p>\n
A doctor caring for patients in four Ontario cities may be driven from the profession, or from the country,\u00a0 because he refuses to practise medicine in accordance with the policies of Planned Parenthood (“MD under fire for denying birth\u00a0control,” National Post<\/em>, 22 February, 2002). Welcome to the world of single-issue ethics.<\/p>\n Professor Laura Shanner asserts her\u00a0personal belief that a physician “absolutely must” help patients obtain drugs or procedures to which the physician objects for\u00a0reasons of conscience. But there is no self-evident reason why her morality should be imposed upon dissenting physicians under threat of\u00a0 professional excommunication. Nor do mantras like “standard of\u00a0care” provide useful guidance when the morality of the \u2018care\u2019\u00a0\u00a0itself is in issue. Dr. Morgantaler\u2019s standard of care is, in some\u00a0 respects, markedly different from that of Physicians for Life. The\u00a0standard of care in Oregon includes assisted suicide, and in the Netherlands, euthanasia.<\/p>\n On the other hand, John Hof is\u00a0mistaken in his suggestion that conscientious objectors may refuse to\u00a0 prescribe contraceptives in order to meet the “spiritual needs” of their patients. People do not go to the doctor to\u00a0\u00a0satisfy their spiritual needs, and physicians should not assume the\u00a0role of spiritual director.<\/p>\n Conscientious objection arises from\u00a0concern about one\u2019s own moral culpability, not that of others. It is a matter of personal integrity, not an attempt to control someone else\u2019s\u00a0behaviour. The unfortunate situation in Barrie may be the result of an\u00a0infelicitous explanation that failed to make this clear.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"