LETTER IN RESPONSE TO JULIE CANTOR (NEJM)

Re: Conscientious Objection Gone Awry---Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine

Dr. Cantor maintains that those who disagree with her perfectly contestable philosophical and ethical viewpoints ought to remain neutral, while she herself cannot. Accussing others of selfishly telling half-truths, while she falsely implies that a woman’s right to birth control is Constitutionally protected and self-servingly stomping on the truly Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of conscience and religion of healthcare providers, Dr Cantor betrays her own lack of impartiality.

True, Church and State are autonomous; yet this is not to say that religious believers within a secular society ought therefore to be treated as second-class citizens. .

Cantor’s obvious intent is to promote greater access to a variety of options for women, yet this cannot be done at the expense of relegating professionals to function as automatons or fragmented individuals who live via different mores in different settings.

Just as Dr Cantor has a right to live via her own beliefs and her own conscience, so do those who oppose her beliefs have the right to live with integrity as truly responsible moral agents.

Cristina Alarcon , Bpharm, Masters Bioethics


Longer version of letter:
Re: Conscientious Objection Gone Awry---Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine


Unmatched is the candor of Dr Cantor in “conscientious objection gone awry…”. Not only is she transparently unfair to those who would disagree with her perfectly contestable philosophical and ethical viewpoints, but she also dares to insinuate that healthcare providers ought to remain neutral while she herself cannot.

While it is true that Church and State must each maintain their autonomy, it is false to conclude that religious believers (as opposed to non-religious believers) ought therefore to be treated as second-class citizens. She dares to accuse others of selfishly telling half-truths, while falsely implying that a woman’s right to birth control is Constitutionally protected and self-servingly stomping on the truly Constitutionally protected rights of freedom of conscience and religion of all citizens, those of healthcare providers included.

Cantor’s obvious intent is to promote greater access to a variety of options for women, yet this cannot be done at the expense of relegating professionals to function as automatons or fragmented individuals who live via different mores in different settings.

Furthermore, her myopic views on women’s health issues, which reduces women to the sum of their reproductive organs lacks vision and imagination. It is an insult to the women who, as patients, may not all share her views, and to the professionals who selflessly care for them. To compare the non provision of abortion services to non provision of lifesaving treatments such as blood transfusions and diabetic medicines shows a further lack of deep reflection on the fact that pregnancy is not an illness, and premature delivery is rarely a therapeutically lifesaving intervention. On the contrary, abortion takes the life of an innocent bystander.

Finally, just as Dr Cantor has a right to live via her own beliefs and her own conscience, be it religiously informed or not, so do those who oppose her beliefs have the right to live with integrity as truly responsible moral agents.

Cristina Alarcon
Bpharm. Masters Bioethics