« Press Release: California Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Medical Care and Religious Freedom | Main | Application Information for the 2008 AUL Voter Guide Program »
Case Status Update: California Supreme Court Rules That Physicians Must Provide Elective Treatments In Any Situation
By Mailee Smith | August 18, 2008
In a disturbing unanimous opinion today, the California Supreme Court ruled that patient demand for nonessential, elective care trumps the freedom of conscience of physicians and their ability to practice medicine in accordance with their religious beliefs.
The Plaintiff, Ms. Benitez, brought suit because physicians at North Coast Women’s Medical Care Group could not, based upon conscience, perform one particular form of artificial insemination. Ms. Benitez was told from the beginning of the patient-physician relationship that certain North Coast physicians could not perform that particular elective procedure on unmarried women. When later denied that elective procedure, Ms. Benitez claimed it was because of her sexual orientation and sued.
The Court’s ruling is disturbing—and dangerous—for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Benitez’s arguments—as adopted by the California Supreme Court—represent an extremist position that will deny physicians free exercise in any medical situation. Rather than balancing the patient and physician interests so that everyone wins, the Court completely ignored the physicians’ constitutionally-guaranteed free exercise rights. Thus, this decision will force physicians to perform any elective procedure in any situation, regardless of their moral or religious beliefs. In fact, this decision is dangerous to any professional in any occupation.
Second, the Court’s decision poses a threat to good medical care. It defies common sense that a patient would want a doctor to violate his or her conscience in practicing medicine. We want our physicians to have consciences. In addition, by giving physicians an ultimatum—treat every patient in any way she demands, or get out of the profession—we will be left with a diminished supply of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers. Obviously, a diminished supply will be disastrous for the overwhelming demand in American society today.
What is ironic about Ms. Benitez’s arguments and the Court’s opinion is that both demonstrate their complete intolerance for the lifestyle decisions of other Americans. Ms. Benitez demands to be respected in her lifestyle decisions; but she does not afford that same grace and dignity to the decisions of others.
AUL filed an amicus brief at the appellate level as well as before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA), American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), and Physicians for Life. AUL argued that Ms. Benitez’s extremist arguments would, if adopted by the Court, open a Pandora’s Box of ramifications threatening to religious freedom and the practice of medicine.
The case now returns to the trial court for a trial and important factual determinations including whether the physicians declined to perform the demanded treatment because of Ms. Benitez’s marital status or her sexual orientation. If, as the physicians have demonstrated all along, the trial court agrees that the physicians acted based upon Ms. Benitez’s marital status, the case should be decided in favor of the physicians. Ms. Benitez has raised no claims of marital discrimination.
Related Posts
Topics: Amicus, Judiciary, Legal Program, ROC, SSCP |
August 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I have linked to your post from Special rights trumps doctors religious rights