Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Consciences in Conflict
THIS CATHOLIC'S VIEW
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Most Americans believe that they should follow their consciences as the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong. Most of the time this works. But problems arise when consciences come into conflict.
For example, my conscience may tell me to do one thing while your conscience tells you to do something else. Or my conscience may tell me to do one thing when the law requires something else.
American society tries to respect freedom of conscience whenever possible. When our country had a draft, the law permitted conscientious objectors to do alternative service rather than serve in the military. Here the law provided protection for conscience even when national security was at stake.
Sometimes conscience impels people to violate the law. During the civil rights struggle, peaceful protesters who practiced civil disobedience were condemned by some for disobeying the law, but today most people recognize that these heroes forced our nation to deal with racial prejudice. That these protestors were willing to go to jail for their beliefs gave them added credibility.
There are limits to America's toleration of conscience. For example, the use of violence to overcome a perceived evil in society has not been recognized as legitimate since the Revolutionary War. And parents with religious objections to medical treatment for their children will be overruled by courts that must look out of the best interests of the children.
The newest area of conflict of consciences is in the field of health care, where abortion is the critical problem. Does a woman's right to an abortion mean that doctors, nurses and hospitals must perform an abortion even if their consciences forbid it?
The Obama administration has proposed revising the regulations governing conscience and health care issued by the Bush administration about a month before it left office. The purpose of these regulations was to ensure that federal funds "do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law."
The law is clear that no one can be forced to perform an abortion, and any new regulations would have to respect the law. Regulations cannot change the law. When it announced the rescinding of these regulations, the Obama administration should have made clearer that it was not going to try to change the law.
But opponents of the regulations feel that they were too sweeping in their interpretation of the law. We will have to wait and see what the new regulations say.
Although the law currently protects the conscience rights of health care providers, some pro-choice activists would like to have the law force health care providers to perform abortions even if they have moral objections. Such a move would be disastrous as well as unnecessary.
Abortion is not normally an emergency procedure. A woman has plenty of time to find a doctor and a facility that will perform the abortion. After all, there are 1,700 abortion providers who perform more than a million abortions a year in the U.S. Forcing providers to perform abortions would be divisive and could result in the elimination of health services in some areas if providers shut down rather than go against their conscience.
The hard case is the treatment of rape victims in emergency rooms. Morning after drugs or Plan B are often given to rape victims to keep them from becoming pregnant. There is some confusion about what these drugs actually do. If they cause an abortion, some would have moral objections. If they prevent fertilization, few would object. Because of this ambiguity, some Catholic hospitals give morning after drugs to rape victims. Others do not.
There is political pressure to force hospitals to provide morning after drugs to rape victims, but before this is done, the possible consequences should be considered. Some hospitals might refuse to accept rape victims or even close down their emergency rooms in response to such requirements. This would be disastrous for everyone.
Another approach needs to be found that respects the right of conscience and the rights of the rape victim. For example, hospitals can be required to disclose what services they will not provide. Ways then can be found to inform the victim from whom she can receive the drugs in a timely manner. Such an approach would respect the rights of the woman while also respecting the consciences of the health care providers.
Thomas J. Reese, S.J., is Senior Fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.
By Thomas J. Reese |
May 12, 2009; 4:34 PM ET
| Category:
Georgetown/On Faith
,
This Catholic's View
Save & Share:
Previous: Mothers Need More Than a Day |
Next: The Gift of Celibacy
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 15, 2009 8:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why some cults like the Baha'ists have no way to form a conscience:
"You'll never have to bother your silly little brain by
thinking again! All that hard brainwork had been done for you by the great "Babs" "
Posted by: CCNL | May 15, 2009 12:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For more on the NT perspective:
Out of Print, Rare.
C. Christian Nut-Louse. The New in the New Testament. Antarctic UP: Antarctica, 1957.
Available in Deep Drifts, Antarctica, starting at $1.29 (ending at $1.34)
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 14, 2009 6:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fr. Reese's article is well-reasoned and balanced. He argues persuasively that the government should respect the consciences of Catholic health care providers who face a major dilemma. It is also refreshing to read someone who approaches such a difficult topic without the usual polemics.
Posted by: georgie3 | May 14, 2009 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THE LAW OF ANY GIVEN NATION MUST BE COPLYED WITH. IF YOU CANNOT GET THE LAW CHANGED, TRY TO BECOME A MEMBER OF A DIFFERENT NATION OF YOUR LIKEING IF IT MEANS SO MUCH TO YOU. THE VATICAN IS A NATION AND IT MUST RESPECT ALL OTHER NATIONS AS IT WANTS THEM TO RESPECT IT. WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE OUT TO YOUR MEMBERS OF GOVERMENT ON A ISSUE? BEAR IN MIND THAT THOES THAT FILE TAX EXAMPT MUST COMPLY WITH I.R.S. TAX EXAMPT RULES.
Posted by: usapdx | May 14, 2009 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let us be perfectly clear, the consciences of cults like the Baha'ists, Aum Shinrikyo, Peoples Temple, The Manson Family, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, and Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God will never dictate the expenditures of tax payers' monies.
Posted by: CCNL | May 14, 2009 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Fr. Reese: Another approach needs to be found that respects the right of conscience and the rights of the rape victim. For example, hospitals can be required to disclose what services they will not provide. Ways then can be found to inform the victim from whom she can receive the drugs in a timely manner.
*******************************************
A fertilized egg implants within 48 hours of fertilization. Plan B needs to be taken within that window in order to work, and the sooner it's taken, the better. Taken at the outside margins of that window, it could be too late for it to work.
If you had just been brought to an emergency room after having been raped, were still in a state of shock, not to mention pain, do you really think that you would have the presence of mind or the physical endurance to be able to shop hospitals for one that would give you Plan B?
Posted by: lepidopteryx | May 14, 2009 8:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
THe conscience clauses never should have been permitted, can be eliminated, and should be.
RCC hospitals and any others have the right to decline certain procedures, the right to refuse certain medications. What they do not have the right to is to defacto refuse those services that are lawful in the US because they do not like them.
There are areas in which the nearest hospitals invoke the "conscience clauses," thereby, requiring patients, who may not be in a position to travel to find a way to hospitals that provide the services they need.
The RCC needs to understand, finally and forever, that this is a secular society. Don't want YOUR hospitals to do certain procedures because YOU don't like them? Fine. Keep your hands out of my American tax-paying pockets.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 14, 2009 3:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hmmmm....And those who struggle valiantly on with a single brain cell, as does our atheist Catholic, CCNL?
What with only the one cell, fading fast,we cannot expect him to waste protoplasm on conscience, not on logic, nor on evidence, etc.
And as the light dims on said atheist Catholic, it asks
WWAIMT
What Would An In-tact Mind Think?
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 14, 2009 3:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let us be perfectly clear, the consciences of Baha'ists will never dictate the expenditures of tax payers' monies.
Posted by: CCNL | May 13, 2009 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let me be as clear as possible. NO tax dollars for hospitals that refuse to perform procedures based on "denominational views"
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 13, 2009 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
THe conscience clauses never should have been permitted, can be eliminated, and should be.
RCC hospitals and any others have the right to decline certain procedures, the right to refuse certain medications. What they do not have the right to is to defacto refuse those services that are lawful in the US because they do not like them.
There are areas in which the nearest hospitals invoke the "conscience clauses," thereby, requiring patients, who may not be in a position to travel to find a way to hospitals that provide the services they need.
The RCC needs to understand, finally and forever, that this is a secular society. Don't want YOUR hospitals to do certain procedures because YOU don't like them? Fine. Keep your hands out of my American tax-paying pockets.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | May 13, 2009 5:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The old coat hanger method of abortion probably saved more lives than our modern forehead to uterus brain suction treatments.
Posted by: RogerWDavis | May 13, 2009 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
For more on the NT perspective:
Out of Print, Rare.
C. Christian Nut-Louse. The New in the New Testament. Antarctic UP: Antarctica, 1957.
Available in Deep Drifts, Antarctica, starting at $1.29 (ending at $1.34)