The
Washington State Board of Pharmacy considered, much to the public's dismay, a
proposal to allow pharmacists to deny the delivery of medications if the medicines have an effect that is contrary to their moral code. The irrationality of the episode was such that a pharmacist on the board, ironically, dismissed Governor Gregoire's comments about protecting patients' rights because the governor "is not a doctor."
Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed, a victory for reproductive rights in a state which guaranteed reproductive privacy rights in 1991 with the passage of Initiative 120. Full hearings on the proposed rule are expected to come in January.
I am a genuine progressive, so I suffer little hesitation when the need for reform is made clear. As a consequence, one of the most effective ways to catch my attention is to claim to be persecuted. Systematic oppression of a group, merely due to their membership in such a group, diminishes freedom; it is not acceptable in our nation.
One such group which claims persecution is the so-called Christian health care workers. (I say "so-called" because there are many Christians who work in the health care industry who do not claim persecution. This is a phenomenon created solely by, and for the purposes of, the authoritarian right.)
Recently, Steve Massey, who writes a "faith and values" opinion column for Spokane's Spokesman-Review, claimed that health care workers are persecuted for their faith by being required to provide medications, procedures, or merely transportation which they would not accept as patients.
I do not question their moral code. Clearly, they believe they live in a corrupted world in which immorality is abundant, even ubiquitous. Indeed, I applaud them for having a habit of believing in something greater than themselves. We progressives do, too. So, I do not blame him, per se, for attempting to connect his source of community strength to his goals by claiming a moral right to deny the delivery of health care to salve the health care worker's conscience despite the presence of a doctor's orders.
However, they are called doctor's "orders" for a reason. They're not "requests," not "by-your-leaves." The doctor and patient have made a decision which they affirm is in the best interest of the patient's health based on information that other health care workers do not, and in many cases, cannot have access. The privileged, informed nature and source of the order makes it a mandate. Interference with such a determination disregards the purpose and context of the decision, and puts the needs of the health care worker above the needs of the patient.
True, pharmacists are not mere "pill dispensers." They play a critical role in the protection of their patients. However, this does not excuse them from the ethical duty; it is the essence of it. The Washington State Pharmacy Association itself states "When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy." So, their issue is clearly not about protecting patients. It's about something sinister.
Allow me to be clear: if you enter the medical field in order to assert power over, rather than provide assistance to, patients who have come to you for help, you have made a patently unethical decision. You should serve your patient, not yourself.
Massey claims that this is "merely the latest result of mankind's reckless dive into moral relativity." However, Massey's hypocrisy is made manifest when he refers to "another medic with a less precise moral compass" as the eventual solution to a patient's issue. In other words, allowing this lapse of professional ethics should be allowed precisely because most other people are ethical. His position is not merely implied. He states that "it is largely a false tension" as "most patients can readily go someplace else for treatment."
His ethical relativity demands that, as long as there are enough people around who will be ethical, his responsibility-avoiding followers need not be. However, in decrying moral relativity, Massey claims that his sense of morality should be universal. Even if it were merely widespread his argument collapses.
It does not appear to be his intent to preserve medical ethics. It is, instead, to expand the use of discrimination against the powerless, and his "don't worry, be happy" message is that patients are not powerless--yet. My last remaining hope it that is it not intentional that it's the health of women which suffers most from his ethically challenged stance.
Steve Massey and I do agree on two things. First, and to his credit, he admits his position is not reasonable. (Although, I would advise him not to relish that quite so much.)
Second, health care workers should not be forced to provide care against their faith. Just as people who object to the slaughter and consumption of cattle should not work at McDonald's, such medical workers should find a field of employment with a lower standard of professional ethics--one with a standard they're capable of achieving. That's what their free will is for.
As long as this subject remains one of public debate, it's important for us to call this what it is by using its name and taking away its power. This "moral" issue is merely an excuse to engage in unethical behavior. What unethical medical workers are experiencing is not persecution; it is justice. Justice is bitter for the unjust. It is not meant to be enjoyed.
Most Americans are distressed when true cases of discrimination erupt, which makes it all the more regrettable when some people falsely don the mantle of persecution. Not only does it distract good people attempting to stamp out true prejudice, but it also argues that persecution in the world is so slight that only artificial cases remain.
Let us not be sidetracked, but instead move forward to ensure that health care is provided to all, and that patients' legitimate right to good health is protected from the unethical application of discriminatory power applied by people upon whom they depend.