By Hilary White
By Hilary White
By James Mills
Society, even pagan society, is legitimate and praiseworthy insofar as its laws follow the natural moral law. Sometimes society must overlook transgressions of its laws when enforcement would cause more trouble than good. But a legitimate society must never require its citizens to perform serious moral evil.
Requiring adoption agencies to place children with unfit adoptive parents, or requiring physicians to kill their patients, is a terrible abuse of government power. Not only does it permit evil to occur, but it forces members of society intent on doing good to participate in doing evil, or forces them to stop doing good. Most countries would do will with more doctors and more people concerned with the welfare of orphaned and abandoned children—not fewer.
The role of the physician is aiding patients to regain their health, hopefully to return to productive lives—at worst, the physician is to “do no harm.” Putting people to death is the work of an executioner—and then only the guilty, and that after due process. Only assassins murder the innocent. The idea of turning healers into executioners is beyond repugnant. Requiring the physician to serve as an assassin threatens the quality of the society's medical care by introducing practitioners with a lower regard for the very thing they are expected to protect through their healing arts—life itself.
Likewise, assigning the care of orphans only to those children at risk will introduce a similar disregard for child welfare—something obviously counter productive given the knowledge that adult anti-social behavior is often rooted in childhood trauma and neglect.
Perhaps worst of all, by forcing immorality upon its citizens the nation itself is degraded, influencing all with its immorality, and becoming a less trustworthy guardian of its citizens. And, God is not mocked!
A lesson may be gained from the British. Socialism is conducive to such things. Without a free market the administrators of a socialist society have nothing but their fallible judgment to allocate resources for production. With resources wasted things are more likely to be scarce than in a free economy. In a controlled economy social planners are apt to approve what is apparently cheaper, rather than what is more moral. Having hobbled the economy by forbidding a competitive market, they are under greater pressure to do things cheaply and expediently, than are their free-market cousins.
Only when service providers face competition do they employ resources to provide what consumers want and need—rather than what bureaucrats forecast in their central plans. In a free market a customer will find insurance companies and health networks that do not require abortion or murder to treat maternity or geriatric cases. Moral treatment may cost society something more—less than it is likely to cost in a controlled economy—but the citizen is allowed to do what is right, rather than being forced by law to do what is wrong.
Only in a free market can a patient demand a physician who is not also the state's executioner.
This article can be viewed full screen at