Fostering and Homosexuality: Christianity and the Courts.

The law courts are becoming the main arena where morality is discussed. It is regrettable because the law is a blunt instrument, which creates precedents and, therefore generalises a principle on the basis of single cases. It is also regrettable because morality is always in development and cannot be decided once and for all.

The latest is a Christian couple who were turned down by the Council for their beliefs about homosexuality. The couple were foster carers in the past and told the social worker that they could not tell a child homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle.

The High Court did not find that they had been discriminated against. According to The Guardian, the judges ruled that that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society. Except, this is exactly what happened. By denying the freedom of conscience to the foster carers, the state has imposed a particular interpretation of rights.

I do not believe homosexuality is wrong in any way. The belief that homosexuality is wrong derives from view of human nature I do not share, as I argued previously. However, in this case homosexual children were not being denied a service and were not being discriminated against. By contrast, the courts told the foster carers that they couldn't say what they believed. Of course there are limits to everyone’s freedom of conscience, but primarily is when that freedom is translated into discriminatory action. That’s why it’s important to distinguish ‘protection from discrimination’ (action) from ‘freedom of conscience’ (thought).

When the Christian B&B owners turned down the gay couple, they discriminated against the couple in the delivery of a commercial activity. They not only sought to impose their view of things on their customers, but were also responsible for a specific course of action. For more, see my post.

It is important to distinguish action from thought. It is true that homosexuals have been persecuted on the basis of moral bigotry. It is also true that Jews have been persecuted for not believing in Christ. Today, in this country, this is a crime. If Christians, who believe homosexuality to be wrong, are considered homophobic, are Christians, who believe Jews are not saved, anti-Semitic?

Foster parents will have views and habits that might not tick all the ‘state’s boxes’. If the state is so troubled by that, it should stop all fostering and use machines. Children will hear different views and see different behaviours at home, at school, in the street and on TV. Who knows? They might even read some books and decide to think for themselves. I didn’t grow up liberal by being ‘protected’ from illiberal views. Liberalism relies on the open exchange of views and reciprocal respect. It requires these views not be imposed. It requires freedom, even the freedom to be ‘wrong’.

Europe has a troubled history with religion so European (which includes British) courts keep on missing the point and seek that illiberal chimera of a neutral secular society, which would effectively exclude religious people. Sexism, homophobia, racism etc. have been going on for a long time with and without religion. The way forward is to avoid the courts and have an honest and open discussion. As a liberal, I do not want people’s views and beliefs to be sanitised. I cherish disagreement and debate. Above all, I seek agreement on boundaries that will ensure respect and peaceful living for all.

Premature births, NHS money and ethics

Leave all hope, for thoughtful ethical discussion, ye who watch BBC documentaries. The documentary 23 Weeks Babies: The Price of Life is no exception. Director Adam Wishart, who ‘writes about science’, as he tells us, spends six months in a hospital where intensive care is given to babies of 23 weeks. Economics is today’s unquestioned paradigm, so it’s all about how much it costs. The ‘ethics’ of the problem is reduced to a dumbed-down utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. Doctors, nurses and parents are interviewed but not a philosopher in sight (let alone a theologian). Before you quip, there are research centres on applied ethics that would be more than willing to lend someone to comment on the ethical questions.

The whole hour is devoted to babies who receive resuscitation and an incredibly invasive and possibly painful treatment to survive a few days or weeks. Parents don’t seem to be fully informed about the treatment itself, how painful it is or what effects it has for the future. Doctors and nurses seem to think that all this intervention is not worth it because only one in 100 survives without major problems, most of those who survive are seriously disabled and most of 23 weeks babies die. However, the focus and logic of the documentary is money.

How we care and how much we care at the start, during and at the end of life is an ethical question. Ethical questions need a more thoughtful framework. What is Wishart attitude to the ethical questions? “Tough decisions need to be made”. ‘Toughness’ is not a philosophical argument, even in utilitarianism.
By framing the documentary in such narrow terms, simply looking at outcomes, Wishart doesn’t seem to give a fig about the ethical questions, including what kind of information and advice should parents be given.

What is totally absent is the discussion on resuscitation and pain. When is resuscitation the right intervention? Is resuscitation of a 23 weeks baby providing artificial life? How much pain should a patient endure? Should quality of life be put on the balance? Is life attached to tubes and machines still life? Is lengthening life always the right thing to do? These are difficult questions because they rely on thinking about what life is. But if Parliament, the NHS and the media keep on avoiding philosophy, people will suffer, both at the beginning of life, during life and at the end of life.

Wishart concludes that there is little justification for spending such a great amount of money on something that has such poor outcomes when the money could be used to save lives elsewhere. He thinks parents are asked to make an impossible choice and that the decisions should be made by doctors, as it is in the Netherlands where babies of 23 weeks are not resuscitated. He also thinks we should do more to prevent premature births, except that is a much wider issue and there’s little consensus on the ‘causes’ of premature births.

The progress medicine has made is remarkable and most of the time reassuring. One of the 'unintended consequences' are these ethical questions. The role of philosophy is crucial because it questions assumptions and at present there are far too many assumptions on 'life' and health. I hope MPs, journalists and doctors will start to invite philosophers and theologians at the round table. Life is much too important.