I have often been critical of specific policies of the Israeli government, but I am not an anti-Semite. So yes, there is no necessary connection between the two.

Continue »

You certainly don’t have to be religious to acknowledge that there are moral boundaries that a physician should not cross in responding to a patient’s needs and wishes. And for the believer--Christian, Jewish, Muslim, for example--those boundaries will be reinforced by strong religious convictions. There are some things that God forbids us to do.

But this is not simply a case of religious obligations versus the obligation to serve patients. For the believer, serving a patient is itself a matter of religious conviction. In Christianity, for example, physical healing is one of the things we are called by God to promote. Jesus devoted a lot of attention in his earthly ministry to responding to genuine physical needs.

It is not enough, then, for a physician simply to say “No” to a certain expressed need or wish--or more generally, to refuse to engage in a certain kind of practice or procedure. Even in saying “No,” the obligation to be a healer does not disappear. If, for example, certain Christian communities insist that physicians should not perform abortions, they--along with the physicians in their midst--have a religious obligation to provide alternative ministries of healing, compassion and support for people who in their own lives see abortion as the only solution.

For those of us who claim to be servants of the One whom we refer to as “the Great Physician,” saying “No” to a specific practice or procedure does not cancel our obligation to work for the well-being of people who need healing and comfort.