Note how I put the word ethics in quotation marks. This is because it probably isn’t the right word to use there at all. ‘Personal beliefs’ may have been a better descriptor. At the end of the day I personally think it is just an excuse for political movements to not have to be radically progressive. Instead they are allowed to call themselves progressive and social while not fully implementing the laws they promote.

I will get to the article that prompted me to write this shortly, but let me illustrate what sort of thing I am talking about first.

Gay marriage in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands was the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. Way back in 2001. Of note is also the fact they didn’t add any extra legislation, they simply rewrote one paragraph in the marriage law. There exists only 1 type of marriage in the Netherlands.

There was a problem though. Marriage officials could refuse to wed same-sex couples. We called them weigerambtenaren, the point being that civil servants hired before this change in legislation could not be forced to perform something that was not originally part of their contract. Of course this was only a problem for civil servants with certain ‘personal beliefs’. And it may come to no surprise that this policy got confirmation from the central government when the Christian Democrats were in office. You can read more about this on Wikipedia.

There you have it. A great progressive change of the law, striking a limitation from the marriage law. But because of singular civil servants it might still be hard for people to legally wed in their own municipality. Because personal beliefs of civil servants trump the law.

It was not all bad news though. Starting November 1, 2014 (yes – 2014) municipalities are no longer allowed to hire new marriage officials when they are not willing to perform same-sex marriages. Progress!

This same month I was confronted with another unbelievable example of this:

Abortion in Sweden

Sweden has had legalised abortion in some form since 1938. That’s an incredible long time. Even the latest rewrite of the law is already on the books since 1974. Soon 40 years ago.

2 weeks into this month I was pointed to an article about limiting this law for the health care provider’s personal believes (Swedish). What?!

No, not personal beliefs, it is something they decided to call ‘freedom of conscience’. This would allow your doctor to refuse to perform an abortion or blood transfusion. I guess an abortion could weigh on your conscience as it is taking away something that could become life, but a blood transfusion?

So what brought this on? People like Ellinor Grimmark (Swedish) who became midwifes and want to work at state-owned hospitals all the while refusing to perform abortions.

The thing is, Grimmark is 37 years old. 3 years younger than the Abortion Act. By the time she went to study to become a midwife she would’ve been fully aware of abortions. Why would we want to give her a cop-out and let her ignore part of a job she chose to study for?

Liberalism

I am a self-described liberal. The type of liberal who wants the government to stay the way out of his life. As long as I am not damaging other people I believe I should be allowed to make any choices. I am happy suicides are no longer a punishable offence, I like to fight for legalisation of euthanasia in all its forms, I would appreciate the possibility to drown myself in drugs if I so desire.

From this I also believe a doctor should be free to chose if they want to practice euthanasia. A mid-wife should likewise be allowed to chose whether the perform abortions. But when the state is providing a service I believe they should be required to offer it to its full completion. If the state owns a hospital this hospital should give citizens access to euthanasia and abortions.

If you are a medical professional that does not agree with this you should be free to set-up your own clinic that matches your choices, and the choices of your clients. A privatised clinic can pander to whatever group they want, that is their right in a liberal society. A public clinic should pander to everyone.

Can you imagine police officers practising this to keep their conscience clean? What crimes may be left to their own because the officer doesn’t believe in it being a punishable offence? What legitimate businesses might get hustled because they do not match an officer’s beliefs?