CMDA's The Point

Intolerance of Conscience Threatens Diversity in Medicine

October 4, 2018
Photo: Unsplash

by Jonathan Imbody

This is the 10th essay in a series on conscience in healthcare by Freedom2Care Director Jonathan Imbody. To find more from the series, visit www.cmda.org/thepoint or freedom2care.blogspot.com.

I recently attended a U.S. Department of Justice conference headlined by remarks by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on religious freedom.

The Attorney General pointedly addressed the false notion, advocated in recent years by abortion advocates including some in the medical community, that professionals automatically sacrifice their constitutional freedoms when they choose their profession: "We don’t give up our rights when we go to work, start a business, talk about politics or interact with the government."

The Attorney General's comments stood in contrast to the agenda of healthcare conscience law opponents such as Affordable Care Act architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and University of Pennsylvania professor Ronit Stahl in a New England Journal of Medicine opinion piece entitled "Physicians, Not Conscripts — Conscientious Objection in Health Care."

According to Emanuel and Stahl, conscripted soldiers get forced into their occupation, so therefore they may conscientiously choose not to participate in areas of moral concern. But because physicians choose their occupation, the authors reason, they lose the ability to conscientiously choose not to participate in areas of moral concern:

"No one is forced to be a physician, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional or to choose a subspecialty within their larger field. It is a voluntary, individual choice. By entering a healthcare profession, the person assumes a professional obligation to place the wellbeing and rights of patients at the center of professional practice. Health care professionals are not conscripts, and in a freely chosen profession, conscientious objection cannot override patient care."

Never mind that many physicians actually chose the medical profession to protect life—not to end it. Or that patient care extends to the unborn patient as well as to the already born patient.

U.S. government is reviving religious freedom
The U.S. Attorney General recognizes that the movement to eradicate conscience and religious freedom is not only a threat to medical professionals and their patients, but to the philosophical foundation of our nation: "A dangerous movement, undetected by many, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom. There can be no doubt. This is no little matter. It must be confronted and defeated."

In response to this threat, the Attorney General has launched several initiatives and at the meeting announced the creation of a new Religious Liberty Task Force. The task force is designed to ensure that "all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations. That includes making sure that our employees know their duties to accommodate people of faith."

"As the people in this room know, you have to practice what you preach. We are also going to remain in contact with religious groups across America to ensure that their rights are being protected.  We have been holding listening sessions and we will continue to host them in the coming weeks."

Discrimination against health professionals starts on campus
Besides attending the Attorney General's speech, I also was invited to participate in one of those listening sessions after the speech, with Acting Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Civil Rights Division. During that discussion, I highlighted the discrimination being experienced by students who participate in Christian Medical & Dental Associations’ (CMDA) chapters on medical and dental school campuses nationwide. A few examples:

  • At a dental school in Ohio, where CMDA had ministered to students for 40 years, school officials denied dental students the ability to form a new chapter, stating, “The group has not been approved because of the emphasis on God and especially because of the Bible sessions as written in the proposal you send. [We]…feel that it is not appropriate for us to endorse such activities."
  • At a medical school in Illinois, officials derecognized a 30-year-old CMDA chapter because it did not “meet the Board of Trustee’s policies regarding non-discrimination” because the chapter’s leaders are held to moral standards. Officials stated that because “…students are not eligible to be leaders of the organization if they do not believe in God…your organization’s registration is denied.”
  • At a Wisconsin school of dentistry, administrators forbade a CMDA chapter from meeting on campus because of a fear of legal consequences related to federal non-discrimination laws. Apparently officials had no fear of legal consequences related to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

These startling examples illustrate just how far away some academics have wandered from core principles—not only First Amendment principles of religious exercise and free speech and association—but also basic academic principles of freedom of thought and expression. Autocratic officials at government-subsidized colleges and universities, who discriminate against students with religious convictions, may need government guidance that helps them recognize the link between their subsidized salaries and the proper recognition of students' First Amendment freedoms.

Jonathan Imbody

About Jonathan Imbody

Jonathan serves as Vice President for Government Relations with CMDA and directs the Christian Medical Association's Washington Office. As CMA's liaison with the federal government, he has participated in over 30 White House meetings and events and makes over 200 personal contacts with Congressional leaders and government officials each year. Jonathan testified on euthanasia and assisted suicide before a U.S. Senate committee. A veteran writer of more than 30 years, Jonathan authored Faith Steps, which encourages and equips Christians to engage in public policy issues. He has published more than 100 commentaries in The Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times and many other national publications. World magazine featured his essay summarizing the major medical accomplishments and challenges of the past millennium. He has also written numerous magazine articles, marketing materials and educational curricula. Jonathan's writing focuses on public policy issues including freedom of faith, conscience and speech; human trafficking; abortion; assisted suicide; stem cell research; the role of faith in health; international health; healthcare policy; sexual risk avoidance and HIV/AIDS. His on-site research on euthanasia in the Netherlands formed the basis for the No Mercy video and a presentation at an international conference in The Hague. Jonathan received his bachelor's degree in journalism and speech communications from the Pennsylvania State University, a master's degree from Penn State in counseling and education and a certificate in biblical and theological studies from the Alliance Theological Seminary in New York. Jonathan's wife Amy is an author and leads the Redemptive Education movement. They have four children and four grandchildren.

2 Comments

  1. Norman Wetterau MD on October 26, 2018 at 3:12 pm

    I think CMDS work in this area is very necessary, however you mention that two of the opponents of freedom were architects of the affordable care act. Since you mentioned that , I want to respond .Unfortunately CMDS opposed this and most other attempts to provide health coverage for all Americans. The fact that CMDS does not support a one payer system, or the affordable care act or any viable alterntive does not make way for much understanding on these issues. We talk about liberals and they can rightfully criticize us. It is hard for liberals to take seriously a “Christian organization” that is one of the only medical organizations in this country that did not support universal health care coverage. The president of the AMA at that time , Dr Nancy Neilson, a Christian,is the one that gave President Obama a Hug at the AMA meeting. CMDS had been silent in this important issue. If colleges and others are to take us seriously as Christians, we need to support health care for all, and especially for the poor. Even if President Trump gets us religious freedom, support for him will harm us much more than any harm that liberals can do.

  2. Dr. Samuel N. Mark. MD. FACEP on October 29, 2018 at 7:51 pm

    Affordable care supports abortion. This is against Christian faith. Yes we do support health care for all but not abortion, transgender surgery.

Leave a Comment