opa-opines.net

Civil rights usually refer to: “the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law). Newt doesn’t appear to be discussing what most people call “civil liberties”.

I believe what Newt suggests is that professional people should have the right to use their personal conscience as a guide to their behavior. Not a bad idea. However, does he wish that we extend this to all professions and all “conscience” or just acceptable conscience? For example what if an attorney decides to refuse to defend a client because the alleged crime is against his conscience? What about a member of a terrorist group who actually believes that killing Americans is morally wonderful? Where do we draw the line, and who draws that line?

Members of the medical profession choose to enter the field, and accordingly must expect to perform their duty as defined by that profession. Otherwise they should leave the profession. This does not suggest they abandon their conscience, but that, for example, if they are “pro life”, they should not be an ob gyn doctor. Or, alternatively, that they be free to practice at a hospital or with a medical group that advertises that they are pro life and that they do not perform abortions.

I learned in college that “every right begats a duty”. So for me to have a right, other people must respect that right (or I do not have it). I am pro life, but I am also an American who believes in protecting the rights of my fellow citizens. If I do not agree with a stated right I am free politically to try to have the law changed. Currently our system of laws protects a woman’s right to choose. How can she practice her right if her medical doctor refuses to treat her? Of course, hospitals and doctors should not be required to perform services that they have advertised are against their conscience. Complicated, isn’t it?

If we wish to establish a “new” right under our law that a medical professional be allowed to practice his conscience, we must do it in such a way that also protects the rights of his patients. Maybe, doctors should be required to publicize their positions on controversial issues, like abortion, euthanasia, and stem cells. Then a prospective patient can chose their doctor accordingly.