Think about this.
If it can happen there, it can happen here.
Proof: There actually has to be a discussion in the USA about "conscience clauses".
This is from CNA:
Spain’s Justice Minister says doctors not allowed to object to abortion
Francisco Caamano, Spain’s Minister of Justice
Madrid, Spain, Aug 14, 2009 / 04:13 pm (CNA).- The Collegial Medical Organization and various pro-life groups in Spain have strongly rejected statements by the country’s Minister of Justice, Francisco Caamano, who said Thursday that “there is no room for conscientious objection” when it comes to abortion. [Does this mean they will be jailed if they object?]
The president of the Collegial Medical Organization, Dr. Juan Jose Rodriguez Sendin, said, “The right doctors have in Spain to conscientious objection is going to be respected, whether they like it or not, and it is better this is accepted on good rather than on bad terms.”
Conscientious objection is universally recognized in the medical profession, he insisted, noting that the commitment not to kill, not to abort, not to take part in torture, not to betray patients has been part of medical practice for more than 40 centuries. [40 centuries… primum non nocere …]
“It should not seem strange to any normal person that doctors do not want to perform abortions, what ought to seem strange is the opposite,” he added. “Because it is not an ideological problem, it is simply a question of freedom. For this reason, we are going to defend the right of doctors to conscientious objection,” Rodriguez said.
The Association for the Defense of Conscientious Objection issued a press release calling the statements by the Minister of Justice “sectarian, imprudent and revealing of a manifest scorn for constitutional law, which considers conscientious objection to abortion a right of doctors and other health care professionals.”“For the vast majority of doctors, the rejection of abortion is not based on moral principles but on the conviction that it presupposes ending human life,” the association warned.
It also noted that conscientious objection is the last resort for a citizen “when an obligation imposed by law causes rejection or a grave moral conflict.” “We are certain that the Minister would not want to ‘taste his own medicine’ if he found himself in other circumstances,” the group said.
“We deplore the ‘crusade’ that has been launched in recent days against freedom of conscience,” the association said, calling on the Minister of Justice to publicly clarify “whether his respect for freedom of conscience is sincere or is subject to political interests.”
Right to Life spokesperson, Gador Joya, warned Caamano that no minister and no government “can force a doctor to end a human life and harm the health of his patients. No matter what Mr. Caamano says, we doctors protect life and care for our patients. The vast majority does not practice abortion nor will we,” she stressed.
Loading ...
Angering a fair portion of the medical profession in one’s country has got to not be one of the smartest things to do, all things considered.
Methinks that Minister Caamano ought to head to the confessional today before begging the the Mother of God for her prayers on the Feast of her Assumption.
This is irrational. Doctors in the US are permitted to refuse (on the basis of their conscience) to participate in criminal executions (which I also oppose, but that’s another topic).
So if the medical profession is permitted to exercise its conscience about executing criminals, why can they not do the same when it comes to executing innocent unborn babies?
Another aspect of this whole debate is simply the right to freedom of speech. To say “I object” or “I will not” is, at its roots, the expression of an opinion and most civilised countries protect the right to express such opinions. And let’s not forget that a certain Francisco Franco didn’t hold such rights in terribly high regard. Is Spain to throw away the democracy for which it suffered for so long?
Sadly, this right is, perhaps, dying its last breath. Some opinions today are classified as “hate speech” and, doubtlessly, some things are beyond the pale to say but the number of freely held opinions now suppressed under this heading cheapens our so-called “rights”.
Only yesterday, a Conservative British Member of European Parliament was characterised as “unpatriotic” by a Labour minister for speaking against the NHS. Now, I strongly disagree with this MEP’s statement but is he unpatriotic? He represents his country in a Parliament so does he really dislike Britain so much? Why not engage his ideas and argue them down? And, lest we forget, how many “agitators”, “rebels”, and similar folk have been lined up against the wall and shot for “unpatriotic” thoughts and “crimes”? Once someone is “unpatriotic” then what duty has the state to protect him? How soon until we are taught to actively hate them? How soon until they go to the wall, either in the press and public opinion or in reality?
And people called Francisco Franco a “fascist.” I guess it all depends on one’s perspective. Tom