abortion is legal, accessible and publicly funded in NJ; why were they going out-of-state for the procedure. And I agree with the comment about where was the sexual partner in all this?
2
An 18 year old does not need her parents' consent for any medical procedure, whether Anonymous in NJ approves of it or not.
Just tell her that your Christian church considers abortions to be very shameful and you agree with them so it would not be appropriate for you to drive her to her out of state facility so she can have one.
If that's your belief, why be ashamed of it?
Just tell her that your Christian church considers abortions to be very shameful and you agree with them so it would not be appropriate for you to drive her to her out of state facility so she can have one.
If that's your belief, why be ashamed of it?
3
The "physician's dilemma" is unethical on everyone's part: the VA for classifying and treating the original case as service-connected; the patient for continuing the attempt to manipulate for added lifetime benefits; the physician for not just saying "No" to the perpetuation of this charade.
The VA shows up in news and magazine reports repeatedly for the failure to meet admission-diagnosis-treatment timelines, largely because the system is clogged with ethically challenged (and conceptually unchallenged) cases like this. The distinction hanging over all of it is the failure to grasp the difference between *connected* and *coincident*. I served in the military and suffered dental caries. Would it be ethical for me to make (and the VA to accept) this as service-connected?
This is not to challenge or poke fun at the many men and women who have bonafide illnesses or injuries that are significant and directly attributable to their service. But unless the VA makes the easy choices correctly (and the medical practitioners take an upright stand) the legitimate patients will suffer all the woes that rationing in an open entry system brings.
The VA shows up in news and magazine reports repeatedly for the failure to meet admission-diagnosis-treatment timelines, largely because the system is clogged with ethically challenged (and conceptually unchallenged) cases like this. The distinction hanging over all of it is the failure to grasp the difference between *connected* and *coincident*. I served in the military and suffered dental caries. Would it be ethical for me to make (and the VA to accept) this as service-connected?
This is not to challenge or poke fun at the many men and women who have bonafide illnesses or injuries that are significant and directly attributable to their service. But unless the VA makes the easy choices correctly (and the medical practitioners take an upright stand) the legitimate patients will suffer all the woes that rationing in an open entry system brings.
1
Regarding the woman who can't decide whether to drive her friend to get an abortion: She is being very cruel by not telling her friend yes or no straight out. Abortion is time sensitive, and she could wind up forcing her friend to have to get a more complicated procedure that a simple first trimester abortion by her hemming and hawing around.
Concerning the man who discovered the item for sale online was stolen from his front porch, it's not an ethical issue at all. The issue is that the online company is receiving stolen goods and acting as a fence. He should have reported it to the police and gotten the item back without having to pay for it. I'm shocked that the "ethicists" in this column didn't think of that. Are you among those who think that billionaires can do whatever illegal thing they want and get away with it?
Concerning the man who discovered the item for sale online was stolen from his front porch, it's not an ethical issue at all. The issue is that the online company is receiving stolen goods and acting as a fence. He should have reported it to the police and gotten the item back without having to pay for it. I'm shocked that the "ethicists" in this column didn't think of that. Are you among those who think that billionaires can do whatever illegal thing they want and get away with it?
Gee Jack, tell us how you really feel about doctors. I found Jack Shafer's response to the doctor's question to be abusive, blaming and insulting. Mr. Shafer calls the writer a "bad, bad doctor", he attacks the doctor "does he not know his own profession sufficiently to know whether it's ethical or not...", and says the doctor is "trying to game the system using weasel words and weasel sentences". Does the question that the doctor posed, or any question asked of this column, ever warrant a response like that?? If Mr. Shafer has a personal issue with doctors, than the "ethical" and professional thing to do was to bow out of that conversation. And one more thing , they refer to the doctor as a male but nowhere in the letter did the doctor indicate their gender. I am curious if the doctor's gender was an assumption, or if the name of the writer is known but is withheld for publication.
5
"This billionaire not only got the company for a bargain, he also was given far more money to cover my and my co-workers’ pensions. Instead, he decided to freeze the pensions and pocketed the money."
Freezing the pensions would mean that they are covered (with respect to future payouts), just not a part of the compensation package going forward.
Freezing the pensions would mean that they are covered (with respect to future payouts), just not a part of the compensation package going forward.
The delay wasn't part of the original question, but it did appear in the response. Anyone taking the "ends justify the means" stance with regard to the delay?
Is it wrong to be deceitful in order to prevent someone from doing something viewed as wrong? More specifically, if the letter writer believes that it is wrong to kill the unborn child living in her friend, doesn't she have an obligation to prevent it?
Let's flip the idealologies a bit. Consider an animal rights activist (or even just sympathizer) who is, unsurprisingly, against hunting. This person has a friend who hunts. They are friends for reasons beyond their animal rights views. In preparation for an imminent hunting trip, the hunter needs a ride to the gun shop to pick up ammunition and his recently-tuned firearm. The hunter asks his friend to take him, but the friend delays to the point where he can't get his firearm and misses the trip. The animal rights activist succeeded in preventing animal(s) from being shot. Justified?
Is it wrong to be deceitful in order to prevent someone from doing something viewed as wrong? More specifically, if the letter writer believes that it is wrong to kill the unborn child living in her friend, doesn't she have an obligation to prevent it?
Let's flip the idealologies a bit. Consider an animal rights activist (or even just sympathizer) who is, unsurprisingly, against hunting. This person has a friend who hunts. They are friends for reasons beyond their animal rights views. In preparation for an imminent hunting trip, the hunter needs a ride to the gun shop to pick up ammunition and his recently-tuned firearm. The hunter asks his friend to take him, but the friend delays to the point where he can't get his firearm and misses the trip. The animal rights activist succeeded in preventing animal(s) from being shot. Justified?
...or, instead of a the hunting example, what if the friend needed a ride to the pro-life rally?
One last thought. Surely, if they are such great 'friends', the pregnant one must know about Name Withheld's religious convictions. Why, out of all her 'friends', did she choose to ask one who would be violating her ethical precepts? Doesn't the pregnant one have any other 'friends'? Or is her goal perhaps to prove something? I've made supermarket runs for friends who eat meat, but they know that I won't buy animal products for them, and that if they want a leather jacket for Christmas they'll have to ask Santa because they ain't gettin' it from me.
4
The LW's religion is surely being misinterpreted. If not, the religion is both unkind and unfair. I can't imagine what religion would tell her not to help a friend in need.
1
Abortion is available in NJ. Consult Planned Parenthood. The pregnant girl needs another friend. At age 18 she certainly does not need parents´permission, she is an adult with a lousy friend.
7
Oh, IDK. When I was dating a devout Catholic and was getting ready to terminate a pregnancy, he wanted to marry. But I was set on not having the baby. He consulted with his priest, who actually told him, "You don't have to agree with her, but you can be with her." The friend can tell her friend that, too.
3
I don't think Name Withheld ever asked a question about ethical behavior. He asked if he was "a fool." I think this is one of those situations in which one can get overly intellectualized about ethics and not allow for the fact that it is okay to be a human being, and act on emotions at times. He knows that the "ethical' thing to do it to return the money. He is asking if he is being a fool to adhere to his strong ethical standards in the face of a situation that gets him angry, and in this case, I would say he can give himself a break, and act unethically, if he wants to. The question I would pose is, "Must one always be ethical or Is it okay to be bad at times?"
Putting aside the teachings of the church, you must decide for yourself what the value of a human fetus is. Your friend has asked you to assist, by transportation, in terminating the life of her fetus because it does not fit with how she wants her life to go. She has put you in an awful position. Follow your conscience.
2
Kenji, Amy and Jack all agree that it would be ethical for the letter writer to disregard the teachings of her church to drive her friend. On what moral authority? Perhaps all three are clergy members who are experts in the tenets of the writer's church, or possibly they conferred with such a clergy member and neglected to include it in the answer. Or perhaps they are simply blinded by their own personal disregard for the tenets of organized religion.
7
No, you do not have to drive your friend but it was unethical and unconscionable to delay telling her. And why isn't the co-creator facing his responsibilities?
21
The decision about the abortion belongs to the pregnant woman. She bears all of the burdens, emotional, financial, health risk and all the rest. The writer has no role in that decision and refusing to drive her pregnant friend ends the friendship because the writer is imposing her religious beliefs on her friend.
The writer is essentially saying: I can't be your friend because you are not applying my religious beliefs to the conduct of your life.
There are two outcomes:
1. the writer succeeds in interfering with her friend's course of action. Unlikely, but not impossible. How can the friendship survive that?
2. The friend finds someone else to drive her -- a better friend.
Of what value is the friendship at that point?
The writer is essentially saying: I can't be your friend because you are not applying my religious beliefs to the conduct of your life.
There are two outcomes:
1. the writer succeeds in interfering with her friend's course of action. Unlikely, but not impossible. How can the friendship survive that?
2. The friend finds someone else to drive her -- a better friend.
Of what value is the friendship at that point?
10
Actually, that's not what the writer is saying. She is saying she cannot help her friend in this particular instance, which is not saying her friend should abide by her particular religious convictions.
I am an atheist and pro-choice, and agree with the panel that it is unethical not to tell the friend so that she can make other arrangements to make her appointment. But even that does not her a "bad friend" make, simply a conflicted one.
I have friends who are people of faith, and friends who are not. It is possible for us all to peacefully coexist.
I am an atheist and pro-choice, and agree with the panel that it is unethical not to tell the friend so that she can make other arrangements to make her appointment. But even that does not her a "bad friend" make, simply a conflicted one.
I have friends who are people of faith, and friends who are not. It is possible for us all to peacefully coexist.
3
The middle question essentially asks whether tweaking the physician's letter would serve the "greater good."
What surprises me is that all three panelists lack the concept that sometimes the greater good trumps the letter of the law, ethically.
It's not whether they think this is the case for this particular question. It is the complete absence of their even having this concept.
These people certainly should not be thought of as "ethicists."
What surprises me is that all three panelists lack the concept that sometimes the greater good trumps the letter of the law, ethically.
It's not whether they think this is the case for this particular question. It is the complete absence of their even having this concept.
These people certainly should not be thought of as "ethicists."
10
What is the greater good in this case. If the patient is not entitled to the benefit then threats the end of it. The physician might offer suggestions of whom to contact for financial assistance, but he should participate in sticking the taxpayers with something the patient is not owed. In this case the greater good is protecting the public trust and fisc.
1
Very good point, Polymath.
I think your comments points to a larger issue with the new format of the Ethicist(s). I miss the older format. I liked having longer thoughtful responses from a particular person, not off-the-cuff comments from a group of people. The off-the-cuff comments are more akin to what my roommates and I do sitting around the breakfast table on Sunday morning--one of us will read one of the Ethicist questions and the rest will offer our two cents. I enjoy those face-to-face discussions, but I want something more substantive and well-thought out from the Ethicist column.
I think your comments points to a larger issue with the new format of the Ethicist(s). I miss the older format. I liked having longer thoughtful responses from a particular person, not off-the-cuff comments from a group of people. The off-the-cuff comments are more akin to what my roommates and I do sitting around the breakfast table on Sunday morning--one of us will read one of the Ethicist questions and the rest will offer our two cents. I enjoy those face-to-face discussions, but I want something more substantive and well-thought out from the Ethicist column.
5
"The letter writer delays but does not in any way avoid her best friend getting an abortion — that’s unethical and unkind."
Sorry, I do not understand the meaning of the phrase "avoid her best friend getting an abortion." Or why not doing this in any way is unethical.
Sorry, I do not understand the meaning of the phrase "avoid her best friend getting an abortion." Or why not doing this in any way is unethical.
5
You did not consider whether it is ethical to agree to write a letter that has no possibility of being helpful. That letter to the V.A. is never going to add any weight to the patient's request, and the doctor knows it. The real reason for the doctor's remorse is that he lied to the patient by neglecting to inform him of what he would and would not write.
8
I live in NJ. My wife and I would be happy to drive this young lady to receive the medical treatment she wants. The NYT should feel free to connect us.
The bottom line is that the pregnant woman needs a ride. It doesn't require a "friend." It requires just enough ethics (not much) to set her up with that ride. Among the thousands of readers of this alleged ethics column, there must be others with enough sense of community to break through the isolation that this pregnancy appears to have engendered.
And Amy, Jack, and Kenji can prattle on ethics-free. Ethics is best expressed by one's actions, not just words.
The bottom line is that the pregnant woman needs a ride. It doesn't require a "friend." It requires just enough ethics (not much) to set her up with that ride. Among the thousands of readers of this alleged ethics column, there must be others with enough sense of community to break through the isolation that this pregnancy appears to have engendered.
And Amy, Jack, and Kenji can prattle on ethics-free. Ethics is best expressed by one's actions, not just words.
39
No, you should not act against your principles.
Strangely enough, not so long ago the cashier at the supermarket informed me cheerfully that I'd gone over the dollar threshold for receiving a free holiday turkey. I responded that I am a vegan (and hate the alternative fake-meat 'turkey'). Oh, said the woman behind me, then you can take it and give it to someone else. Whereupon I answered - as has been my stock answer for dilemmas of this type - that this is equivalent to saying that if I disapprove of abortion, I should still be willing to drive someone to the clinic. If you truly believe an act is immoral, you do not commit it, you do not help or enable another to commit it, and you do not allow others to think you approve of it, including tacit silence. Admttedly some complicity is unavoidable; e.g., I don't get to decide how my tax dollars are used. But when it comes to actions that are totally up to the individual, to take an avoidable action against your conscience is to have no conscience.
Strangely enough, not so long ago the cashier at the supermarket informed me cheerfully that I'd gone over the dollar threshold for receiving a free holiday turkey. I responded that I am a vegan (and hate the alternative fake-meat 'turkey'). Oh, said the woman behind me, then you can take it and give it to someone else. Whereupon I answered - as has been my stock answer for dilemmas of this type - that this is equivalent to saying that if I disapprove of abortion, I should still be willing to drive someone to the clinic. If you truly believe an act is immoral, you do not commit it, you do not help or enable another to commit it, and you do not allow others to think you approve of it, including tacit silence. Admttedly some complicity is unavoidable; e.g., I don't get to decide how my tax dollars are used. But when it comes to actions that are totally up to the individual, to take an avoidable action against your conscience is to have no conscience.
8
The panel seems to agree with you. The LW is not condemned for not wanting to violate her own standards, but for not being honest with her friend and allowing her to make her own decision about abortion. Were she purposely using delaying tactics in order to run out the clock, making the abortion impossible (and I don't think that is the case), I believe she would be required ethically to contribute in some substantial way to the child. I don't know how -- I haven't thought it out enough -- but it would be despicable to force her own beliefs onto her trusting friend in such a major life issue.
So the ethical thing to do is to stop dithering, be honest, and tell the friend to find another ride.
So the ethical thing to do is to stop dithering, be honest, and tell the friend to find another ride.
6
So ... now I just read the questions and skip the ethicists answers. (I tried, but they're boring and ridiculous.) Then I skip to the comments. I guess I'll have to live with that until the next iteration.
57
To the friend delaying helping out the pregnant friend - I will drive her. Tell her immediately before it's too late and she STUCK. Of course then you'll get to see the consequences of your actions - everyday forever.
8
Agree. I think Name Withheld should turn down the friend (although I am strongly pro-choice), but s/he should do it immediately and not dither. Have the courage of your convictions.
6
As a physician i am often asked to write letters like these. I do sometimes write things in a "weasely" way to appease the patient but not lie at the same time. However, sleep apnea is unlikely service connected. It makes no medical sense. I would tell the patient this and barring an unusual set of extenuating circumstances, I would refuse to write the letter.
5
I have to question the moral authority of any church that would discourage its adherents to deny the request of a friend in need. I'd be happy to help this girl out with a ride. The law, and my own personal ethics, support helping a young woman out of a situation that could seriously impede her dreams for her future.
15
deny any request from a friend in need? suppose the friend asked you to kill her husband?
8
That's a facile response. My friend in need plans to steal some money from a deli. She really needs that money to make rent or she'll be evicted. Should I leave the car running?
7
Neither of the two replies are analogous to the question, because they are about acts that are illegal. Abortion is legal. It's always hard to find an analogous situation to abortion. I'd drive her, but I'm pro-choice, so no problem there. (As is my church.) The friend is having trouble telling her pregnant friend about her dilemma probably because she knows it would trigger a difficult discussion, and might even end the friendship. Obviously, she needs to talk to her friend.
1
worst idea for a column ever, from the times. like a bunch of people sitting around shelling pistachio nuts and coming up with different methodologies.
93
This column is downright amateurish (i.e, it is hard to imagine the participants being knowledgeable in the field) in its new format...and additionally, uninformative. I should have included disorganized. It feels like ethics "lite". Can we go back to a single, knowledgeable ethicist? None of the current members of the column impress me as being at all well-versed in ethics-alternatively, they are well-versed and can't express themselves with any intellectual depth.
128
Totally agree with you David. I really enjoyed Chuck Klosterman. Now I find I just kind of skim through the debate. Not a lot of meat.
32
Thanks, David. I used to really look forward to this column, but as it has changed twice over a short period of time and has not improved, I don't think I will be reading it much longer.
11
Please spell out for me the qualifications one must have to be "a knowledg eable ethicist". I find it perplexing for anyone to be able to dictate what is right or wrong, to be a sort of "Ask Abby" for intellectuals.
4
"Best friends" do what is needed to help the other through thick or thin, if it's not illegal. So far abortion is still legal. She's not being asked to drive a getaway care, just to drive her friend to where she will receive life-changing help.
30
Actually, legality aside, she IS being asked to drive the getaway car. Especially since the letter writer thinks that abortion is wrong.
You don't have to drive her. Just tell her at once, so she can find other options.
Time is of essence here and she doesn't have much of it. And then, hopefully, she'll find better friends.
Time is of essence here and she doesn't have much of it. And then, hopefully, she'll find better friends.
51
Not only should she drive her friend to the appointment, she should quit her church. Friendship is far more important than participation in a religion that is as close-minded as the one the troubled person is a part of.
30
Re. the first letter, I think the panel has understated how deeply harmful it was to put this friend off for weeks, making it potentially more difficult, expensive and riskier to have the abortion. I think this friend now has to take into account that--probably unknowingly--she's hurt her closest friend. That should weigh in the equation of what she owes her friend v. what she owes her church (or, possibly but less clear, her own religious principles).
28
If the friend's actions purposefully interfere with the woman's ability to get an abortion, then the friend is also ethically obligated to adopt the baby, or babysit it and pay for its care and upbringing.
16
NAME WITHHELD: Don't drive your friend if you don't want to help her. But, do not pretend to be her closest friend if you can not accept her as she is. Love is acceptance. And, it is your friend's choice to make a decision that concerns her body and her life.
SECOND NAME WITHHELD: You are right to return the money. In that sense your action is ethical. But, in the context of the bigger picture, some may think it is foolish.
SECOND NAME WITHHELD: You are right to return the money. In that sense your action is ethical. But, in the context of the bigger picture, some may think it is foolish.
12
It is never foolish to protect your own integrity, especially for only $20.
7
Chatelet, would you advise Name Withheld to love her friend and accept her as she is if she were, say, a child molester? A meth addict? A neo-Nazi? Would you say you wouldn't help her rob a bank (assume a 'Robin Hood' robbery for a good cause), but you'd drive the getaway car?
With regard to the specific example here, I happen to be about as pro-choice as you can get. But as to the broader principle at stake, the idea that you should just placidly 'accept' attitudes - and especially practices - that go against your most deeply held beliefs, in the name of 'friendship', can be adopted only by people who don't have any real, meaningful convictions at all. If you seriously feel someone is taking an action that is ethically or morally wrong, then your own integrity demands you do not participate. There is NO other person, however dear to you, worth sacrificing your own integrity. Even Jesus agreed - he told his followers (more than once) to turn their backs on their family if necessary, in order to follow him.
With regard to the specific example here, I happen to be about as pro-choice as you can get. But as to the broader principle at stake, the idea that you should just placidly 'accept' attitudes - and especially practices - that go against your most deeply held beliefs, in the name of 'friendship', can be adopted only by people who don't have any real, meaningful convictions at all. If you seriously feel someone is taking an action that is ethically or morally wrong, then your own integrity demands you do not participate. There is NO other person, however dear to you, worth sacrificing your own integrity. Even Jesus agreed - he told his followers (more than once) to turn their backs on their family if necessary, in order to follow him.
5
I'm finding this column irritating.
1) Please explain the meaning of the illustration.
2) The first question about driving someone for an abortion was addressed poorly. The factors are time of the biological deadline and moral view, neither of which will change .
The writer does moral damage by giving the impression to the "closest friend" that delay will lead her to be able to decide. Decide and then either help the "closest friend" find assistance with someone else, or walk away. There is no try.
3) The second question is just uninformed. Sleep apnea is never caused by occupational factors. It is an anatomic problem. Some slender and some overweight people get it . Unless the patient's oropharynx was changed by a military-related injury then the physician should have said to the veteran, this is not my area of expertise.
4) The question about the person with something on his porch does not even begin with an unambiguous sentence. The sentence suggests he bought something that was later stolen. He really means that he thought this item was delivered to his porch but stolen before he got home to bring it inside.
But really the question has nothing to do with porches. It should read- "I mistakenly requested and received a refund for something I ordered on line that later turned up. I repaid the refund but that got me to thinking....."
and then the answer is, stealing is wrong and disconnected from the wrong the company has done.
Too much dithering here.
1) Please explain the meaning of the illustration.
2) The first question about driving someone for an abortion was addressed poorly. The factors are time of the biological deadline and moral view, neither of which will change .
The writer does moral damage by giving the impression to the "closest friend" that delay will lead her to be able to decide. Decide and then either help the "closest friend" find assistance with someone else, or walk away. There is no try.
3) The second question is just uninformed. Sleep apnea is never caused by occupational factors. It is an anatomic problem. Some slender and some overweight people get it . Unless the patient's oropharynx was changed by a military-related injury then the physician should have said to the veteran, this is not my area of expertise.
4) The question about the person with something on his porch does not even begin with an unambiguous sentence. The sentence suggests he bought something that was later stolen. He really means that he thought this item was delivered to his porch but stolen before he got home to bring it inside.
But really the question has nothing to do with porches. It should read- "I mistakenly requested and received a refund for something I ordered on line that later turned up. I repaid the refund but that got me to thinking....."
and then the answer is, stealing is wrong and disconnected from the wrong the company has done.
Too much dithering here.
29
The illustration is a bird eating a butterfly.
1
The illustration is a woman kissing a . . . I don't know. Bathroom scales?
1
I find it interesting that the writer states that abortion is considered "shameful" in her church - she did not say "sinful". Additionally, one would question why "out of state" - with concern that it might not be a legitimate medical facility abortion as obtaining an abortion in NJ in a proper medical facility is legal and available. Perhaps a trip to Planned Parenthood for a consultation would be in order to clarify and confirm both the need and the friend's psychological comfort. But, above all, for me, being a friend is not superimposing my beliefs on a friend. My friend is my friend because I accept them as they are and, barring something illegal, I am there for them, to help them when help is needed.
15
Actually, she did say "prohibited" as well.
It's ethical to either take her or not take her. What's unethical is keeping her hanging, since time is of the essence (the first trimester doesn't last indefinitely).
So the person writing in should make up his/her mind TODAY, tell the pregnant friend of her decision TODAY, and let the friend make other transportation arrangements (e.g. bus, train, ask another friend, etc.) in time to get a first-trimester abortion.
All I can say is, some friend. The kind I think we could all do without.
So the person writing in should make up his/her mind TODAY, tell the pregnant friend of her decision TODAY, and let the friend make other transportation arrangements (e.g. bus, train, ask another friend, etc.) in time to get a first-trimester abortion.
All I can say is, some friend. The kind I think we could all do without.
29
If the letter writer is Catholic it is against her religion to even drive someone to the appointment. I think the "ethicists" are lacking compassion or knowledge when they imply the letter writer has no religious reason not to drive the friend to the appointment.
I'm mildly pro-choice but I think women should consider giving up infants for adoption. Yes, the orphanages are full but they're not full of infants. And, sadly, a couple that wants a baby isn't going to take an 8 year old just because there are no infants. They go to other countries or to test tubes etc.
Many young people have a gap year between high school and college. It will not "ruin her life" for the friend to give up the baby.
That's the conversation lw and friend should have when she belatedly explains why she can't participate.
I'm mildly pro-choice but I think women should consider giving up infants for adoption. Yes, the orphanages are full but they're not full of infants. And, sadly, a couple that wants a baby isn't going to take an 8 year old just because there are no infants. They go to other countries or to test tubes etc.
Many young people have a gap year between high school and college. It will not "ruin her life" for the friend to give up the baby.
That's the conversation lw and friend should have when she belatedly explains why she can't participate.
5
Agree that procrastinating about telling the friend "No" regarding driving her to her abortion is unethical. I think the letter writer is actually being passive-aggressive, hoping that her hemming and hawing will delay the procedure for so long that her friend cannot actually obtain an abortion. I would call that letter writer gutless. She is entitled to say no, based on her beliefs. She is not entitled to lead her friend on for so long that an abortion becomes impossible or considerably more complicated.
As a nurse practitioner, I just shook my head at the clueless responses to the doctor's inquiry. We face these quandaries all the time. We cannot ask for benefits for our patients based solely on what the patient thinks happened. But when we have no solid facts to back up an opinion, all we can do is state what the patient told us. That is truth-telling and any medical professional reading that letter would recognize it for what it is. The doc wants his/her patient to have benefits, but can't go out on a limb and support it because he doesn't have the evidence. The only question I would have is: did the doc tell the patient this? I am upfront about what I can and cannot say in a letter regarding disability benefits.
As a nurse practitioner, I just shook my head at the clueless responses to the doctor's inquiry. We face these quandaries all the time. We cannot ask for benefits for our patients based solely on what the patient thinks happened. But when we have no solid facts to back up an opinion, all we can do is state what the patient told us. That is truth-telling and any medical professional reading that letter would recognize it for what it is. The doc wants his/her patient to have benefits, but can't go out on a limb and support it because he doesn't have the evidence. The only question I would have is: did the doc tell the patient this? I am upfront about what I can and cannot say in a letter regarding disability benefits.
14
This column was actually decent, and I recognize that the panelists made an effort to sum up their conversations. However, the old format coved a lot more interesting ground in less space. Can we please have it back?
21
Please! I agree with you; this three person thing doesn't work.
8
It is not only the new format but the lack of expertise and effort to look deeper into different aspects of the questions before mumbling on and on,
that make this column a misnomer.
that make this column a misnomer.
10
The letter writer who asks if it's ethical "me to drive hours away, without her parents’ consent, for an abortion, when that is regarded as very shameful in my church?"
Actually, yes. Doing anything less is unethical. Why? Because forced pregnancy and forced childbirth are torture and slavery. Because forcing a young woman to bear a child she can't raise can easily destroy her life--and virtually condemns her and any future children she has to lifelong poverty.
Making up excuses, rather than simply saying, actually, my religious beliefs are that you are nothing a reproductive host for any future lives you can bear--regardless of your own desire for a life--is the icing on a cake of pure evil.
You'd think the ethicists here would have some concern about an 18 year old whose life may be about to be permanently destroyed.
Actually, yes. Doing anything less is unethical. Why? Because forced pregnancy and forced childbirth are torture and slavery. Because forcing a young woman to bear a child she can't raise can easily destroy her life--and virtually condemns her and any future children she has to lifelong poverty.
Making up excuses, rather than simply saying, actually, my religious beliefs are that you are nothing a reproductive host for any future lives you can bear--regardless of your own desire for a life--is the icing on a cake of pure evil.
You'd think the ethicists here would have some concern about an 18 year old whose life may be about to be permanently destroyed.
19
Please bring back Randy Cohen.... enough is enough.
92
I wish I could recommend this response a hundred thousand times.
11
What I find interesting is that no one has mentioned that there are options other than abortion. And if the friend has any inkling that abortion isn't right, she should talk to her friend about these options.
There are many organizations that would help her obtain an adoption, and help her through her pregnancy. In my area there are multiple pregnancy resource centers, and even a shelter for young pregnant women. I cannot imagine these resources wouldn't be available in New Jersey.
While many have said the letter writer would not be a friend if she did not drive her friend to get an abortion, I believe that she would be a great friend if she told her friend what she believes to be the moral truth and helped her figure out options other than abortion. If the writer, or any young woman making a decision about their pregnancy, are reading this, please know that people love and are waiting to support you through your pregnancy.
There are many organizations that would help her obtain an adoption, and help her through her pregnancy. In my area there are multiple pregnancy resource centers, and even a shelter for young pregnant women. I cannot imagine these resources wouldn't be available in New Jersey.
While many have said the letter writer would not be a friend if she did not drive her friend to get an abortion, I believe that she would be a great friend if she told her friend what she believes to be the moral truth and helped her figure out options other than abortion. If the writer, or any young woman making a decision about their pregnancy, are reading this, please know that people love and are waiting to support you through your pregnancy.
3
Responding to a friend's request for help with a sermon about "moral truth" would be unhelpful and the opposite of ethical.
22
No one said anything about a sermon. She would simply be a friend suggesting options other than killing the life within her friend.
Time is of the essence. The LW might make those suggestions, but it must be succinct and done at the same time she informs her friend that she will not drive her. The conversation must happen pronto before she does actual damage to this friend's life. I appreciate that the LW might want to truly express her point of view, but she cannot do this while putting her friend in further peril and making a bad situation worse.
Some of the comments on the abortion question are one sided, intolerant of the writer’s beliefs, and superficial.
It is probably safe to assume that the writer's religion teaches that a fetus is a human person endowed with natural human rights, thus to destroy it is to take human life. That is a contentious claim upon which reasonable people can disagree, but it is not indefensible or uncommon. By that doctrine, escorting the friend to a clinic would be viewed (at least by the writer) as active assistance in taking a human life.
Refusing to drive is hardly forcing one’s views. The writer has no a priori obligation to drive in the first place. Moreover, it is safe to assume that the writer’s belief system holds that ALL fetuses are human persons, including his/her friends'.
It is irrelevant that the friend will ultimately decide to get the abortion. If I knew a friend was going to shoot someone regardless of my actions, ethically, I still could not provide her a bullet.
Nor is it relevant whether abortion is a legal medical procedure or not. Just because we determine an unethical act is legal does not mean we have an obligation to actively assist others to commit that act.
The real questions seem to be: Does the WRITER think the religious teachings are correct? How serious is the ethical wrong in question according to the writer's beliefs? If the writer sees it as the taking of a life, he/she cannot assist. If it is some lesser wrong, she needs to weigh consequences.
It is probably safe to assume that the writer's religion teaches that a fetus is a human person endowed with natural human rights, thus to destroy it is to take human life. That is a contentious claim upon which reasonable people can disagree, but it is not indefensible or uncommon. By that doctrine, escorting the friend to a clinic would be viewed (at least by the writer) as active assistance in taking a human life.
Refusing to drive is hardly forcing one’s views. The writer has no a priori obligation to drive in the first place. Moreover, it is safe to assume that the writer’s belief system holds that ALL fetuses are human persons, including his/her friends'.
It is irrelevant that the friend will ultimately decide to get the abortion. If I knew a friend was going to shoot someone regardless of my actions, ethically, I still could not provide her a bullet.
Nor is it relevant whether abortion is a legal medical procedure or not. Just because we determine an unethical act is legal does not mean we have an obligation to actively assist others to commit that act.
The real questions seem to be: Does the WRITER think the religious teachings are correct? How serious is the ethical wrong in question according to the writer's beliefs? If the writer sees it as the taking of a life, he/she cannot assist. If it is some lesser wrong, she needs to weigh consequences.
7
You raise most of the points I found missing in the discussion by the panelists. The ethical thing for the first letter writer to do is tell her friend that she is not comfortable with the idea of driving her to get an abortion. She is probably afraid not only of letting her friend down, but of losing the friendship. There is trust and probably confidence on the part of the pregnant friend, and there is cowardice and equivocation on the part of the driving friend. She could have to face the implication that by not driving she disapproves or condemns her pregnant friend's choice - and it's not clear that she actually does. She's going to have to confront the fact that she's unsure of where she falls on this topic. She doesn't say she thinks abortion is wrong or that she wants to talk her friend out of it, but she is uncomfortable with it. And quite frankly, that's an okay place for a teenage girl to be. But she needs to entrust her friend with the honesty that her friend has shown her.
2
First, I think this is a good question for this column. Also, I think that the ethicists actually did a good job with it.
I think these are young people, trying to figure out how things work in the world, so maybe commenters could take this into consideration. At their age it's not unusual to be somewhat self-absorbed. Obviously the most important thing is to say yes or no immediately, so as not to endanger the pregnant friend. Obviously the writer is trying to decide how he/she really feels and how to say what needs to be said.
Maybe the commenters could think about the questioner being an actual person, and decide what tone to take in response...not change the answer, but the tone. Anyone discussing ethics can still tell the truth with a warm heart. That's what this young person is trying to learn to do!
I think these are young people, trying to figure out how things work in the world, so maybe commenters could take this into consideration. At their age it's not unusual to be somewhat self-absorbed. Obviously the most important thing is to say yes or no immediately, so as not to endanger the pregnant friend. Obviously the writer is trying to decide how he/she really feels and how to say what needs to be said.
Maybe the commenters could think about the questioner being an actual person, and decide what tone to take in response...not change the answer, but the tone. Anyone discussing ethics can still tell the truth with a warm heart. That's what this young person is trying to learn to do!
4
Weird how we create a system where some people can afford health care and others have to plead their case before a board in the hopes of getting their treatment paid for. Some people have comprehensive reproductive health care close by, others have to drive to the next state. And then -- wouldn't you know it! -- ethical dilemmas abound.
What if we just gave everyone what they have a right to in the first place?
What if we just gave everyone what they have a right to in the first place?
8
Name Withheld's friend would still need a lift to the clinic.
1
If in fact the friend believes that an abortion is wring, it seems to me that helping someone to obtain one is participating in the wrong. It would be important to tell her friend immediately if she did not want to drive her.
6
In their response to the friend wondering whether or not it was ethical to drive her friend to an abortion, the ethicists completely sidestepped the main quandary presented here.
It would be one thing if the questioner said - I think my friend should have the baby. Do I have to take her to the doctor to get an abortion? But the writer made it pretty clear that she thought the pregnancy would be a disaster for her friend. So the question becomes, do I have an ethical obligation to impose my values on somebody who doesn't share them? Or perhaps even - is it ethical for me to impose my values on people when they are likely to suffer more from them than I will?
If the writer had asked if it's ethical to vote for a politician who supports abortion rights, even though it goes against their religion, would Mr. Yoshino have said - either a yes or no vote would be ethical. But what if the question was - is it ethical to vote for a politician who is racist because his opponent supports abortion and my church is against abortion? Or what if the question was - is it ethical to vote for an opponent of abortion rights, even though I believe that in some cases abortion is justified?
Would the ethicists consider it ethical for Pope Francis to lobby gov'ts around the world to abolish divorce, or ban birth control, because the Catholic church doesn't believe in in it?
It would be one thing if the questioner said - I think my friend should have the baby. Do I have to take her to the doctor to get an abortion? But the writer made it pretty clear that she thought the pregnancy would be a disaster for her friend. So the question becomes, do I have an ethical obligation to impose my values on somebody who doesn't share them? Or perhaps even - is it ethical for me to impose my values on people when they are likely to suffer more from them than I will?
If the writer had asked if it's ethical to vote for a politician who supports abortion rights, even though it goes against their religion, would Mr. Yoshino have said - either a yes or no vote would be ethical. But what if the question was - is it ethical to vote for a politician who is racist because his opponent supports abortion and my church is against abortion? Or what if the question was - is it ethical to vote for an opponent of abortion rights, even though I believe that in some cases abortion is justified?
Would the ethicists consider it ethical for Pope Francis to lobby gov'ts around the world to abolish divorce, or ban birth control, because the Catholic church doesn't believe in in it?
20
The Catholic Church has spent centuries lobbying governments and people (sometimes at the stake) around the world to adhere to its dogma, or else. We now reap what was sown in overpopulation and the subjugation of women worldwide.
8
Key info is missing from the "must I drive my friend to an abortion" question. Does the pregnant friend have any realistic alternatives for a driver?
A pregnant teen often has only 1 friend whom she can trust with the highly sensitive info that she's pregnant, that she wants an abortion, & that her parents haven't given their consent (& therefore likely don't even know about the pregnancy). That the pregnant teen has asked a friend whose religion holds abortion to be "very shameful" (a fact the pregnant teen friend is likely to know) suggests that the pregnant teen may indeed have no alternative. This possibility looks even more likely when one considers that the pregnant teen has allowed "weeks" to go by without having found an alternate driver.
If it's true that the pregnant teen has no realistic alternative driver, then I think a true "friend" bears an obligation to set aside religious obligations to help a friend in need. No one is asking the letter writer to get an abortion. Just to help a friend in a desperate situation.
I agree it's unethical for the letter-writer "friend" to have put off her response "for weeks." How many weeks, for Pete's sake? She may already have pushed the friend from the 1st to 2d trimester, increasing the procedure's invasiveness & maybe reducing legal options.
I'm also confused that the letter writer is writing from New Jersey, where abortion is legal, about a "friend" who needs to drive to a different state. The friend lives out-of-state?
A pregnant teen often has only 1 friend whom she can trust with the highly sensitive info that she's pregnant, that she wants an abortion, & that her parents haven't given their consent (& therefore likely don't even know about the pregnancy). That the pregnant teen has asked a friend whose religion holds abortion to be "very shameful" (a fact the pregnant teen friend is likely to know) suggests that the pregnant teen may indeed have no alternative. This possibility looks even more likely when one considers that the pregnant teen has allowed "weeks" to go by without having found an alternate driver.
If it's true that the pregnant teen has no realistic alternative driver, then I think a true "friend" bears an obligation to set aside religious obligations to help a friend in need. No one is asking the letter writer to get an abortion. Just to help a friend in a desperate situation.
I agree it's unethical for the letter-writer "friend" to have put off her response "for weeks." How many weeks, for Pete's sake? She may already have pushed the friend from the 1st to 2d trimester, increasing the procedure's invasiveness & maybe reducing legal options.
I'm also confused that the letter writer is writing from New Jersey, where abortion is legal, about a "friend" who needs to drive to a different state. The friend lives out-of-state?
64
"But we all agree that it’s ethical no matter [what she does]" - I hope the podcast is highly listenable because - with insight like that - the column is no longer readable.
78
Unless you have been in the letter writer's position--do I drive the young friend to obtain an abortion--you cannot begin to imagine the complicated, often contorted thinking, and the seemingly infinite number of questions, including legal questions, that arise beforehand. The intellectual and moral analysis is brutal.
The writer may be unsure her friend is acting correctly (and all that that implies). She may believe abortion is a woman's right, and even that it's the best option, but remain distressed that a future life is being terminated. You may not believe that abortion is ever correct, but you are compassionate and want to there to help a friend. Each question has a minefield beneath it. There is no incorrect ethical response (except one disclosing the woman's identity without her prompting or approval).
Does the writer believe her friend is unprepared for motherhood (on the other hand, who is?). The dilemma (s)he describes ought to be worked through with someone whose judgment the letter writer trusts. Her delay in telling the pregnant woman is not a major factor. In the end, the pregnant woman will make her choice alone, and perhaps the writer detects some hesitancy and projects the pregnant woman's concerns by presenting her own ethical dilemma now.
Finally, I cannot tell from the letter whether the writer is a man or woman, but I think that gender difference also presents a major factor and should be addressed by the letter writer.
The writer may be unsure her friend is acting correctly (and all that that implies). She may believe abortion is a woman's right, and even that it's the best option, but remain distressed that a future life is being terminated. You may not believe that abortion is ever correct, but you are compassionate and want to there to help a friend. Each question has a minefield beneath it. There is no incorrect ethical response (except one disclosing the woman's identity without her prompting or approval).
Does the writer believe her friend is unprepared for motherhood (on the other hand, who is?). The dilemma (s)he describes ought to be worked through with someone whose judgment the letter writer trusts. Her delay in telling the pregnant woman is not a major factor. In the end, the pregnant woman will make her choice alone, and perhaps the writer detects some hesitancy and projects the pregnant woman's concerns by presenting her own ethical dilemma now.
Finally, I cannot tell from the letter whether the writer is a man or woman, but I think that gender difference also presents a major factor and should be addressed by the letter writer.
8
> Her delay in telling the pregnant woman is not a major factor.
It's the crux of the matter. An immediate refusal is fine. Stringing the friend along is cruel.
It's the crux of the matter. An immediate refusal is fine. Stringing the friend along is cruel.
14
The delay in telling her friend is THE major factor. She can sort the rest out on her own later, but her friend does not have the luxury of time, and probably does not have a lot of resources.
I'm more worried about the friend than about the letter writer. She seems to know her decision and needs help in carrying it out. If the LW won't do it, I do not in the least blame her, but she cannot continue to jeopardize her friend by dithering over her own feelings.
I'm more worried about the friend than about the letter writer. She seems to know her decision and needs help in carrying it out. If the LW won't do it, I do not in the least blame her, but she cannot continue to jeopardize her friend by dithering over her own feelings.
7
The so called "friend" of the woman who wants a safe medical abortion should simply drive her friend to her appointment if in fact she is a friend. There is no need for any conversation about the event. You either are or you are not a "friend".
43
Think of something legal that you disapprove of. Would your advice be the same?
I'll bet you wouldn't give a friend a lift to the polls on election day if she let slip she was going to vote Republican.
The definition of a 'friend' in many of the responses here seems to hinge on how the responder feels about abortion on demand, rather than on the question of individual ethics. Very flat and narrow thinking.
I'll bet you wouldn't give a friend a lift to the polls on election day if she let slip she was going to vote Republican.
The definition of a 'friend' in many of the responses here seems to hinge on how the responder feels about abortion on demand, rather than on the question of individual ethics. Very flat and narrow thinking.
2
I feel so sorry for that poor, pregnant friend, waiting for her "friend" to help her while really she's running out the clock to force her into an unwanted pregnancy and birth.
That's not a friend.
That's not a friend.
124
'...Is it ethical for me to drive hours away...for an abortion...'
This is a fake letter, as a woman can get an abortion in New Jersey and does not have to drive to another state.
That said, if this person does not want to drive her for *any* reason, they must tell the woman immediately, as the reason they are stalling appears to be because they want to force their friend to have a child.
Some friend.
This is a fake letter, as a woman can get an abortion in New Jersey and does not have to drive to another state.
That said, if this person does not want to drive her for *any* reason, they must tell the woman immediately, as the reason they are stalling appears to be because they want to force their friend to have a child.
Some friend.
78
Yep. This column is becoming more and more like "Dear Beth" with every passing week.
I can understand not wanting to go to a very local clinic and run the risk of someone who will tattle to your parents about it. But this whole thing -- from the "weeks" of making decisions (seriously, every woman I know who ever had a abortion learned she was pregnant, decided to have an abortion and then had it within a matter of days, not weeks) to the need to go "out of state" when you live in a state where abortion services are legal and fairly easily accessible -- just screams "phony."
I can understand not wanting to go to a very local clinic and run the risk of someone who will tattle to your parents about it. But this whole thing -- from the "weeks" of making decisions (seriously, every woman I know who ever had a abortion learned she was pregnant, decided to have an abortion and then had it within a matter of days, not weeks) to the need to go "out of state" when you live in a state where abortion services are legal and fairly easily accessible -- just screams "phony."
16
It doesn't say she has to go to another state. Maybe she wants to for some reason.
2
The "friend" needs to get a spine & her own opinion. Clearly she can't think for herself - how does SHE feel about the abortion? Don't hide behind your parents & your church. If you disapprove, then say so. But if sounds like you understand this might be the right thing for your friend but you're too 'scared' to admit it. So you hide behind religion.
Welcome to religion - acting stupidly to the detriment of others out of fear of some make believe consequence.
Welcome to religion - acting stupidly to the detriment of others out of fear of some make believe consequence.
48
the friend should drive the young lady to the doctor's office to undergo a legal medical procedure. the religious sanction applies to the friend. Nowhere is it written that it applies to everyone. No one is asking the friend to have an abortion. The young woman needs better friends.
19
Do you really believe what you wrote? If you think it is wrong to do something, surely you must also think that it is wrong to aid someone else in doing that something. In this case, the something is killing an unborn child. It doesn't matter in whose womb the unborn child resides.
1
In addition, the ethicists are making a lot of assumptions. There is no indication that the closest friend does not share the religious beliefs. It's not as if religious groups have lower rates of abortions. It's very possible that the friend also had or even still has these same religious beliefs...
4
Isn't it funny how the word "friend" is used? I suppose when you're young, you count as a friend someone with whom you aren't honest, won't help, and intentionally mislead. With friends like that ... . I was so lucky not to have such a friend!
51
I agree, the friend who seeks the procedure should be given the courtesy of a prompt answer, otherwise you're aiding and abetting states that seek to make it as difficult as possible for women in this position. In this case, procrastination inadvertently becomes a political act.
25
Name withheld should understand that it's HER religion, not her friends religion. No one should impose their religious guidelines on another person. Name withheld would never get an abortion but that doesn't mean she can impose that restriction on her friend in the same way I can't make my Jewish friends give something up for Lent because that is my guideline. Her friend is scared and needs help. When you are a friend, its through good and bad times.
35
If you drive your friend to rob a bank, with full knowledge that he will do so, you are considered an accessory, right? Likewise, if you drive someone to get an abortion, you are an accessory to said abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, it shouldn't matter who is getting one, you should not enable it.
1
About the abortion issue, the letter writer has already put her friend's health at risk by "...putting it off for weeks..." Further delay of either helping or truth-telling is more than unethical and unkind. It's dangerous to the health of both friend and embryo. I'm surprised The Ethicists refer to this issue only indirectly. Surely any action or non-action that increases risk to a person's health is unethical, irrespective of other issues, and because it negatively affects another potential for survival, trumps other considerations.
28
With regard to the young woman who doesn't want to drive her friend to her abortion, I think the real ethical question is whether it is ethical to force one's own religious beliefs on another person.
We currently have state and federal legislators who are trying to prevent any women from having abortions by shutting down clinics, by refusing funding, by setting up irrational and sometimes impossible barriers. This girl is doing the same thing--telling her friend that she understands why she wants an abortion and even agrees with her reasons, but still wants to make it much more difficult for her to have one because her church says it's wrong.
Where in the letter did she say she was prepared to go to college with her friend and care for her child if she doesn't have the abortion? Where did she say she would skip college herself and help support that baby? No, apparently her principles only mean that she is making it more difficult for her friend to act on her own personal and religious beliefs. If that is the act of one's 'closest friend,' then she clearly doesn't deserve the title--and that's the reason she is dithering.
We currently have state and federal legislators who are trying to prevent any women from having abortions by shutting down clinics, by refusing funding, by setting up irrational and sometimes impossible barriers. This girl is doing the same thing--telling her friend that she understands why she wants an abortion and even agrees with her reasons, but still wants to make it much more difficult for her to have one because her church says it's wrong.
Where in the letter did she say she was prepared to go to college with her friend and care for her child if she doesn't have the abortion? Where did she say she would skip college herself and help support that baby? No, apparently her principles only mean that she is making it more difficult for her friend to act on her own personal and religious beliefs. If that is the act of one's 'closest friend,' then she clearly doesn't deserve the title--and that's the reason she is dithering.
41
The "friend" of the women who needs an abortion should simply explain, compassionately, "I know you're desperate. But according to the tenets of my religion I believe you should be forced to bear a child against your will. Therefore, I will not drive you to an abortion clinic."
And the "friend" should not keep putting this off. It's a transparent power play by someone hoping to make it more difficult for the woman to obtain an abortion, putting the procedure into the category of "late-term" abortion. That could make it impossible to obtain legally, result in complications causing the woman's death, or result in her turning to an illegal abortion provider (also risking her life). Face it, "friend." You're only pretending. You're not her friend. Your an acquaintance with a secret agenda.
And the "friend" should not keep putting this off. It's a transparent power play by someone hoping to make it more difficult for the woman to obtain an abortion, putting the procedure into the category of "late-term" abortion. That could make it impossible to obtain legally, result in complications causing the woman's death, or result in her turning to an illegal abortion provider (also risking her life). Face it, "friend." You're only pretending. You're not her friend. Your an acquaintance with a secret agenda.
95
What has this world come to, that Ethicists could reasonably think that another person's medical procedure is up for ethical debate. No one has a right to judge your medical procedure ethical or not. I was really expecting the ethicists to say: your church is against abortions, so if you would like to follow your church's teachings certainly don't get one.
However, it is not ethical to hold your friend to your own religious standards. Never mind why your friend is going to a clinic- the important thing is that she needs a ride to a clinic for a medical procedure.
However, it is not ethical to hold your friend to your own religious standards. Never mind why your friend is going to a clinic- the important thing is that she needs a ride to a clinic for a medical procedure.
36
Oh, please. The girl who wants the abortion is asking too much of her friend. She hasn't told her parents, and she can't be ignorant of the fact that many people sincerely believe that abortion is morally wrong. This is not something anyone should burden a friend with. The friend should tell the girl, "I am willing to help you, but not this way." These days, I guess that takes moral courage too.
13
M.L.: Or, this young woman is genuinely having trouble making up her mind. I don't know which of the two it is. How is it that you do?
3