Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Why don't you just point to an example of conscience rights that isn't a big deal then? Surely there are examples of the implementation that show why we shouldn't worry?
|
There are lots of them. Currently they are all already provided for in the code of ethics. For example, you can already arrange for a different doctor to perform a procedure that's against your conscience, so long as you make the arrangements ahead of time and with the consent of the patient.
As such, it really comes down to how broadly they want to implement these rights. If all it means is that they plan to ensure the existing provisions in the code of ethics are not removed in the future, great. If it extends to being able to say no to anything medical related just because it's against your conscience and you can decide that it's against your conscience at any time, the I'm strongly opposed to conscience rights as it will simply become an excuse for discrimination.
It may be pandering to social conservatives, but I know a lot of very socially conservative people and pretty much none of them support the idea of unlimited conscience rights for medical people or marriage commissioners after acquainting themselves with what it might mean. Limited, very well defined conscience rights has some support, but unlimited conscience rights is opposed by people from all walks of life.
Fortunately, it's unlikely that conscience rights would ever become law simply because it's unlikely to withstand a legal challenge and the more people think about what it really means, the less people support it.
As a result, the conscience rights issue, if it was actually likely to become law, would be concerning, but since it's very unlikely to ever become one, I'm ignoring the issue as I choose who I will vote for.