An amoral vision of physicians

The state legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan have recently passed bills providing that physicans have the freedom not to perform procedures to which they morally object, such as abortions, sterilizations, or procedures involving human embryos. In Wisconsin, the governor this week promised to veto the so-called "conscience clause." Governor Jim Doyle offered the bizarre justification that "[y]ou're moving into very dangerous precedent where doctors make moral decisions on what medical care they'll provide." I'm hoping he was misquoted, for I think it's a much more dangerous precedent to have the governor of Wisconsin explicitly calling for doctors to disconnect their own moral convictions from the medical services they provide. (History is filled with supporting examples, Nazi Germany being the most obvious.)

Governor Doyle's comment reflects, in my view, our legal system's tendency to elevate individual autonomy to absurd heights. Doctors, like lawyers, are seen not as independent moral agents, but simply as tools by which individual consumers can gain unfettered access to public goods like medicine and law. There is no room for judgment, on the provider's part, as to whether certain services are truly "good" -- if the consumer wants it, the provider is legally mandated to make it happen. The same individualism underlies the California Supreme Court's requirement that Catholic employers include contraceptives in their health care plans. (see earlier posts)

This trend is especially problematic for those of us who take subsidiarity seriously. If we want social problems to be addressed locally, those local agents must be empowered to act in ways that are consistent with their own fundamental convictions. If local agents are stripped of their power whenever their vision of public service defies the individualist presumptions of the governing legal regime, then the collective norm has trumped -- which is exactly the scenario that subsidiarity is designed to guard against.

Rob