the Electric Monk

Medical workers have a moral conscience like the rest of us. But consider this case:

A young woman, a University of Wisconsin-Stout student, on July 6, 2002, went to the Kmart in Menomonie [Wisconsin] to fill her prescription for birth control pills. Noesen asked if she intended to use the prescription for contraception. When she said she did, Noesen, a Roman Catholic, told her that filling it was against his religious beliefs. He refused to tell her how or where she could get the prescription filled. The woman took the prescription to a Wal-Mart Pharmacy, but when Noesen was called, he refused to transfer the prescription, later saying it would constitute participating in contraception.

In a separate case (apparently also in Wisconsin), a customer whose prescription for birth control was refused by an objecting pharmacist said that she was too traumatized by the incident to attempt to fill the prescription at another pharmacy. She said she subsequently became pregnant and had an abortion.

Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense legally available drugs when doing so violates their strongly held religious or moral convictions? Does this right extend to all health professionals? The Bush Administration thought so: it sought to establish regulations that would cut off federal funding for “any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable.” The Obama administration has since worked to rescind those regulations.

Obviously this is a difficult and complex array of moral issues, and we’d love to get your thoughts on it. To help get your ethical juices flowing, here is some food for thought:

1. If you are not inclined to grant pharmacists the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, are you also not inclined to permit a doctor to refuse to assist in the suicide of a terminal cancer patient who is in tremendous pain and has only weeks to live (assuming for the sake of argument that this is legal)?

2. If you are inclined to grant pharmacists the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, how do you square that with your (presumed) rejection of the right of a white health care professional to refuse to treat black customers/patients?

3. Does an anti-gun bookstore clerk have the right to refuse to sell “Guns & Ammo” to customer who wishes to buy it?

4. Assuming that conscientious objection to serving in the military when drafted ought to be permitted, is there a feature of the draft situation that is not present in the health care situation?

What do you think?

-Paul Kelleher

Does theism or atheism provide the best foundation for human worth and morality? That was the subject of a debate hosted by the Veritas Forum at MIT between well-known atheist philosopher Peter Singer and John Hare, a Christian philosopher from Yale Divinity School. The packed audience watched the intellectuals spar as the existence of God hung in the balance.

Singer based his argument on the claim that human empathy is a product of our evolution as a social mammal–the ability to imagine each other’s feelings was vital to the success of our species. Singer went on to cite the failings of Christians in addressing the pressing issues of poverty and justice, particularly in the developing world. Hare had no satisfying answer to these statements, failing to cite any data that might indicate the importance of charitable giving by those holding Christian beliefs.

Hare based his argument on the claim that only God provides the overall reasoning, justification, and motivation for morality. With sophisticated philosophical wordplay, Hare explained that atheism fails to reconcile the conflicting values of personal self-interest and altruism. However, the sheer clarity–even simplicity–of Singer’s responses made Hare’s elaborate argument appear obscure and off-point.

The debate came to a climax with a question from the audience on what would make each of them switch sides and adopt their opponent’s position. Singer admitted that the problem of evil in a world overseen by a good, all-powerful God stood in the way of his adopting the Christian faith. Echoing the sentiment of 1 Corinthians 15, John Hare stated that if the resurrection were to be shown to be untrue, then his faith would be in vain and he would consider the claims of the atheist position. Singer quickly pursued this point, pressing Hare on how he would respond if irrefutable evidence against the resurrection were found. To the surprise of many, Hare again underscored the fact that the resurrection was an integral part of his Christian faith.

Watch the debate HERE. What do you think? Is atheism or theism the better foundation for human worth and morality?
–Cody Chambers