According to a report on CitizenLinke.org, the Supreme Court in California recently heard a case that pitted homosexual rights against religious freedom. At the center of the case was a lesbian who sued two doctors who declined to provide in vitro fertilization (IVF). The doctors were concerned about conducting IVF for someone who would be a single parent. Even though they referred the lesbian to another fertility doctor and offered to pay for any extra cost, the court is likely to rule against the freedom of the doctors to follow their consciences.
One justice is quoted as saying, “If you can’t provide this kind of service, then don’t go into this kind of practice.”
In other words, if you believe that children do better in a home with a mom and a dad, “don’t go into this kind of practice.”
Folks, this simply doesn’t bode well for healthcare professionals who believe they should practice medicine within moral and ethical boundaries. Nor does it bode well for healthcare professionals who believe and practice within a Biblical worldview.
It seems like many who claim to be “pro-choice” believe that “choice” should exist for everyone except the healthcare professional who has a moral problem with non-traditional families, abortion, abortifacient birth control, euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide..
In this blog, I’ve reported a steady stream of examples of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and hospitals facing opposition when they attempt to establish ethical and moral lines.
Morally based medicine and religious liberty are foundational concepts in our nation and in the practice of medicine. For most health care professionals, these go hand in hand. If we sacrifice one or the other, it will be at our peril.