Dr Sheila Matthews, a paediatrician sacked for requesting permission to abstain from voting in adoption cases involving same-sex applicants, has been reinstated, but will not now be involved in the decision-marking panel.
Dr Matthews maintains that her opposition to same-sex adoptive parents is a professional opinion, based on her research into the subject. So why muddy the waters by referring to her religious beliefs? Publicising that she holds her views "As a Christian and a paediatrician…" completely compromises her professional objectivity.
The Christian Legal Centre (a body whose subjective stance is eponymously stated) insists that Dr Matthews should also be reinstated to the voting panel and allowed to abstain in cases where prospective adopters are a single-sex couple. This is patently nonsensical and might well compromise the panel's objectivity and operational validity - suppose, for example, that all the panel members chose to abstain for religious or other personal reasons.
Dr Matthews should either commit to carrying out whole-heartedly the tasks required of the panel (for which she would presumably be remunerated), formulating a decision on the unique merits of each case and basing her final decision only on her professional appreciation of the case, or she should not be on the panel at all.
Dr Matthews maintains that her opposition to same-sex adoptive parents is a professional opinion, based on her research into the subject. So why muddy the waters by referring to her religious beliefs? Publicising that she holds her views "As a Christian and a paediatrician…" completely compromises her professional objectivity.
The Christian Legal Centre (a body whose subjective stance is eponymously stated) insists that Dr Matthews should also be reinstated to the voting panel and allowed to abstain in cases where prospective adopters are a single-sex couple. This is patently nonsensical and might well compromise the panel's objectivity and operational validity - suppose, for example, that all the panel members chose to abstain for religious or other personal reasons.
Dr Matthews should either commit to carrying out whole-heartedly the tasks required of the panel (for which she would presumably be remunerated), formulating a decision on the unique merits of each case and basing her final decision only on her professional appreciation of the case, or she should not be on the panel at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment