It may sound sympathetic and tolerant to argue health professionals' right to freedom of conscience ", as shared jointly by Christina Doctare, Bengt Malmgren and Tomas Seidal in the Focal Point 21/10. But what about the right to freedom of conscience for others? And how far can individuals claim a right to have their beliefs met in the workplace?Assume, for instance, that all healthcare workers in a particular hospital would see it as incompatible with their conscience to assist in or perform abortions. What happens to the women's right to have an abortion performed? Should a woman have to find another hospital where the staff's ethical beliefs are consistent with the law as the law allows her to have an abortion performed? What are the particular rights of the individuals in the health sector who exercise the right to veto to perform surgery?
There is also a fundamental part of the argument, which often gets lost. If the point is that employees should be exempt from duties that conflict with their beliefs, it must reasonably relate to such convictions – assuming that they at the very least to be strong enough to be known by the individual. This applies not just to those who claim that the right to life includes the fetus, but also those who do not want their children to receive sex education, or who do not want their daughters to have gymnastics classes with boys. And the men who for religious reasons do not want to take care of women, or people who do not want to deliver mail to (those belonging to certain political parties) Sweden Democrats, or who do not want to build trucks for export to a country whose foreign policies they dislike.
If it's just the emotional strength of conviction that matters, there appears to exist almost limitless opportunities for individuals to claim that their work obliges to exemption from duties and that it would be "discriminatory" not to employ them or to dismiss them because of their beliefs makes it difficult for them to perform certain tasks.
But jobs are not normally arenas for the employees exercise of their belief or faith. The workplace is not for the employee's sake, but to deliver requested or necessary goods and services. Publicly funded services in a secular democracy is to preserve and enhance the individual the freedom and welfare. It is therefore the rights of citizens, not public sector employees conscience who should be the focus.
As taxpayers, we should not fund activities in which the practitioner's beliefs are given more importance than the recipient's needs. Nor should we fund activities dedicated solely to the sectarian’s beliefs, to please them, such as the circumcision of young children for non-medical (religious) reasons. Ultimately this is about safeguarding the strained period between secular democracy with equality before the law, and a confessional society, with exceptions and special solutions which are determined by groups or individuals' beliefs.
Per BauhnProfessor of Moral Philosophy
University Linnaeus
(translation; Dr. Sven Ljungholm;
Development of Human Values)























