I was thinking of stuff like this - could it ever be ethical for mainstream hosptials to deny treatment to catholics, on the basis it would make them either put pressure on their church to start acting reasonably with its own hosptials; or quit it and consequently cut off the church’s funds - and so have said hospitals run by sane people.
My personal view is that the current circumstances don’t justify it, but in principle there are situations which could. And I can be persuaded to move in either direction.
Try rephrasing your question as: “can it ever be ethical for a hospital to deny treatment?” Or better yet, “…to deny treatment on the basis of religion?”
No, there’s no situation in which that’s ethical or even one in which it makes sense. You might as well change it from refusing to treat Catholics to going out on the street and shooting them.
I think that if you were to deny Catholics, or any other religious group, medical treatment, on the basis of their religion, that would be persecuting them, yes.
I’m not sure the OP’s link is relevant. Nobody is required to run a hospital. I’m not required to do so, he’s not, neither is Justin Beiber. You can choose not to run a hospital any time you like for any reason you like.
But if you DO run a hopsital, then no, it’s not ethical to refuse treatment to someone based on their religion.
So the linked threat from a Cardinal to close hospitals is not unethical (though it’s not particularly pleasant, and I disagree with it) - but refusing to treat Catholics because of it is.
Ethicality aside - I’d be surprised if refusing to treat someone based on their religion was even close to being legal, let alone ethical. I think the choice is “you can treat everybody or nobody, but not something in-between”.
Of course not. Hospitals are there to treat the person, not play politics. I know that some apparently are now, or at least some of their managers are, but playing politics is not part of a doctor’s job.
Well, a small number of Catholics are. That doesn’t apply to all Catholics.
It’s wrong when Catholics do it and it’s wrong if others do it to Catholics. (Not that I agree with the equivalence implied here, but that’s beside the point.)
The cardinal in the OP’s link wasn’t suggesting denial of service, he was proposing that Catholic hospitals shut down completely. So there’s non-equivalence #1. And is “denial of service” equivalent to “not providing insurance coverage for a prescription medication”?
No it’s not. There’s a big difference between, for example “I refuse to treat you because you’re a Christian Scientist” and “I refuse to treat anyone because I’m a Christian Scientist.” The former is religious discrimination, the latter is not.
No, it’s not. Discrimination means treating people differently. If I treat eveyrone the same, then whether I treat them well or badly, and whether my motives are good or bad, I am not engaging in discrimination. I may be acting wickedly, and my wickedness may be based on religion (as in, motivated by my religious beliefs) but it is indiscriminate wickedness, not discriminatory wickedness.
That is one possible interpretation of “discriminate,” as in, to distinguish or separate. It would be curious, though, in a hypothetical situation. Suppose the entire country were of group X, except you. You refuse to serve everyone because of your religion. It is not discriminatory, because it just so happens everyone is X.
I interpret discrimination in a social sense to be something more like unjust, unfair, or otherwise unacceptable treatment based on some prejudice or other. Most of the time, this is discriminatory in your sense, as well.
Well, I interpret “discrimination” to mean vanilla ice cream with chocolate sprinkles, but that’s not really much help, is it? If you’re going to assign new meanings to existing words, you need to make that explicit or you are bound to be misunderstood.
The word you’re looking for is “bigotry”, I think.
Even though it seems that most Catholics have no issues with birth control, the Catholic Church has official teachings that it is always wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from being born. Hard line Catholic hierarchy states that abstinence is the only acceptable way to prevent pregnancy, so when in 2010 the Pope said that condom use was justified in some cases to prevent HIV/AIDS, it was considered radical and controversial. www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control