A victory for religious fanaticism is not a victory for religion

In my column last week, I wrote that the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law was essentially a victory for pro-RH people.

The contrary view says that “religion won,” as seen in postings of some anti-RH activists including some of the comments on my column last week. Such thinking has always been one of the fundamental differences between myself and some of the anti-RH advocates. Because, in my humble but constitutionally-protected belief, a religion only loses when its adherents fail to understand that there are very few eternal truths (or what the religious would also call the “sacred”). Some examples: death happens to every living thing; all things change; diversity in all things, including moral precepts, is the rule of nature (or creation). Whether contraceptives are evil is not, for me, one of those big truths. Whether the Supreme Court had ruled one way or the other, none of my Truths would have been put to the test. None of my fundamental precepts could have been changed by the Supreme Court decision. I believe that to stake one’s spiritual truths on the decision of 15 men and women at a particular time in history, such that the terms “”win” or “lose” can be used, is to dissociate religion from the sacred. 

As a non-religious but spiritual person, I have resolved to accept religious/moral/spiritual diversity. Thus, I try to obey the call of both the Buddha and Christ to be compassionate to all but especially to those most different from me. This is the basis also for my full subscription to our Constitution’s policy of secularism. Here again, I don’t think that even if I were religious I would be happy if “religion won” because those who say this refer to a specific religion, Roman Catholicism. In my striving to be compassionate to all, I would be happy indeed if religious freedom which includes the rights of people like me who have no faith, “won.” Religious freedom lost in the Supreme Court decision, something I will return to shortly. In this sense, religion, that part of it which is truly spiritual, also lost.

When life begins

Let me explain further why no particular religion “won.” One of the major arguments put forward by those who claim victory is that the court decided that life begins at fertilization. This is the type of argumentation that pro-RH advocates have come to expect of the opposition. It is at worst an outright lie or, at best, an inability to comprehend English properly. (While I am here I must send my admiration to Chief Justice Sereno who wrote her opinion in Filipino!) Justice Mendoza was speaking for himself alone as the ponente (that is, the one who penned the decision for the Court) when he stated that life begins at fertilization.

Let me quote paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 39 of the decision so that we can put this argument to rest: “Majority of the Members of the Court are of the position that the question of when life begins is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided, at this stage, without proper hearing or evidence. During the deliberation, however, it was agreed upon that the individual members of the Court could express their own views on this matter.

In this regard the ponente is of the strong view that life begins at fertilization.”

Thank goodness for this. The scientific and medical professions have no unanimity on when life begins. The Justices themselves differed in their views. This was something those who intervened in the Supreme Court deliberations also put forward. 

I am truly sorry for those whose world will be shaken now that the Supreme Court has also confirmed that there is yet no clear basis for stating that life begins at fertilization. This fact does not bother my minority but constitutionally-protected sense of the sacred at all. And if the anti-RH folk could find as much tolerance for my moral truths as I have for theirs, perhaps they can share some of my peace.

A threat to medical ethics

But let me now proceed to the provisions that were indeed struck down and why I believe that declaring these unconstitutional is an assault on religious freedom. Nay, not just religious freedom, but also medical ethics.

In summary, the Court said that doctors and other health personnel should not be punished for failing to refer people seeking reproductive health services and information. According to the court, this is in line with well established freedoms of speech and belief and would go against the protections given to conscientious objectors.

First, the Court’s interpretation goes against established guidelines on conscientious objection among medical professionals such as those of the International Federation  of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (FIGO).  

Indeed the RH Law provisions are patterned after the FIGO guidelines. Additionally, the British Medical Association states that when there is a conflict between the physician’s freedom to exercise conscientious objection and the interests of the patient, it must be resolved in favor of the patient. 

So let’s say, I decide that for moral reasons, chemotherapy is dangerous and evil.  I decide that only natural methods are the best treatment for all cancers. I am certainly free to believe that and refuse to administer chemotherapy, but as a physician I must still advise my patient that chemotherapy is the widely accepted standard in many types of cancer and that this is a treatment option. To refuse to tell my patient would resolve the conflict between my rights and that of my patient, in my favor. Worse it would be tantamount to malpractice.

In fact, my refusal to advise my patient to seek chemotherapy with a more competent and amenable physician would be an imposition of my moral belief on my patient.

Furthermore, the RH Law mandates a whole constellation of health services in addition to access to contraceptives. It also mandates services for women experiencing abuse. If a health professional (let’s say he himself is a batterer who believes in the moral right of men to have absolute control over their wives)  fails to refer a battered woman to a shelter and she subsequently dies at the hands of her violent husband, is he not punishable? If a health worker believes that all births should be at home and does not refer women to a health facility, even if referral is medically indicated, is this not punishable? In this case, even if the mother delivers safely, does the doctor’s moral belief allow him or her the right to determine what risks the patient should take with her life?

As I noted in my column last week, if I were only an RH advocate, I would be happy. Surveys are showing that people are aware of the RH Law and their right to contraceptive services. Those seeking contraceptives are likely go to other doctors if any physician refuses. The provisions struck down as unconstitutional are meant to ensure the rights of the patient in what will likely be an increasingly small number of cases.

Special protection for religious fanatics

But the Court’s special treatment of the minority of physicians who don’t believe in contraceptives threatens the ethical standards of the healing profession and gives leeway for incompetence and malpractice in the provision of health services.

If anyone won in striking down these provisions, it surely cannot be the majority of Catholics who accept contraception as moral. Religion did not win here. A few religious fanatics won a few points, to the detriment of all.

I do not know yet whether RH advocates will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision on the provisions stuck down.

What I do hope is that the Philippine Medical Association and the Philippine Obstetrics and Gynecological Society consider how the decision contravenes well established medical ethics. Perhaps it is these groups who should seek clarification from the Supreme Court. – Rappler.com