Bring back moral red lines

Politicians are the last people to turn to for moral guidance but they used to be kept in check by rules of morality that seem to have lost their power. Trampling over bodily autonomy to maximise vaccination rates must not be viewed as a temporary moral blunder that can be forgotten about. If a red line is crossed this needs to be loudly acknowledged, those responsible appropriately punished and a society wide declaration agreed that such a crossing of moral red lines must never be allowed again. We are a long way from any of this happening.

In the meantime many other moral red lines are being crossed with abandon. Take the judgment from the US Supreme Court this week on the case brought by doctors and the state of Missouri against the government for breaking the constitution by censoring their voices on social media. It could have been a straightforward decision. There was plenty of evidence. Instead, the judge said that they could only win the case had they been able to sue for a loss. Is free speech no longer worth protecting when there is no money to be made? The claimants did have loss that they could have sued for but were far more interested in protecting important principles than making a quick buck.

Moral red lines often leave a minority in an uncomfortable place. There is therefore a pressure to move the line to be compassionate to that minority. The result is always a thin end of a wedge and the number harmed in the end is far higher than the original minority.

Take Gillick competence – this is the legal idea that a child can consent to their own treatment, without their parents knowledge, if they have a full understanding of it. It was introduced to enable access to contraception for sexually active teenagers where parents may have tried to block access. Any intended safeguards to ensure the children were not being taken advantage of seemed to have been quickly forgotten and teenagers are able to access contraception on demand. The courts have since tried to put boundaries on the idea saying about the medical advice or treatment that:

1. the child must be convinced that they can understand all aspects of it
2. the child’s physical or mental health is likely to suffer without it
3. it is in the best interests of the child to provide it
4. regarding contraception, the child is likely to have sex whether contraception is provided or not
5. effort must be made to convince the young person to disclose the information to their parents.

However, the thin end of the wedge has extended to allowing children to consent to abortion and to puberty blockers without their parents knowledge. The UK was already on a slippery slope when the guidance on immunisation, The Green Book, stated that under 16s “who understand fully what is involved in the proposed procedure” can consent to a covid vaccine “although ideally their parents will be involved.” There still isn’t anyone who can claim to “fully understand what is involved” in taking a covid vaccine. The intent with Gillick competence was to prevent unwanted teenage pregnancies, although, perhaps for many, all that was avoided was a painful conversation between parent and child. Yet, its introduction has led to allowing children to make life altering decisions without their parents’ knowledge.

In recent years there has been a push to show compassion to others who are suffering near the end of life and want assisted dying. There has always been a red line that doctors will never kill which has meant this minority felt abandoned. However, the introduction of readily available medically assisted dying in Canada has exposed exactly why we need to keep the red line in place. In 2021, 3% of all deaths were medically assisted and by 2022 that reached 4%. Of these 3.5% were not terminally ill. The speed with which dying was offered as a solution to pain and poverty was astounding. Last year a survey showed that 28% of Canadians support euthanasia for homelessness and 27% for poverty. Crossing that red line has been a moral disaster. One Canadian athlete said an official suggested euthanasia when she asked about making her home more accessible. As one wit quipped “Sorry luv, no ramps. But we can do you a slippery slope.” 

Abortion was introduced in the UK in an attempt to find a balance where the lives of mothers and babies could both be valued. The conditions for doctors being permitted to perform an abortion included Clause C, “the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.” Pregnancy is a risk to the physical health of women and this clause is used for the vast majority of abortions. For many years there was one abortion for every four children who were born. However in 2022, abortions rocketed and that ratio has changed to 2.4 live children for every abortion. The introduction of teleconsultations for abortion with the delivery of a pill in the post means that we cannot be certain that all those abortions were completed but also that abortion has been made even more readily available. The President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,  Dr Edward Morris said, “The permanent provision of telemedicine is a huge win for women, girls and people accessing abortion care.” Should more abortions always be celebrated in this way in a society with a plummeting birth rate? Compassion was extended to women in very trying circumstances but no new red line was drawn. The abortion rate has increased incessantly since.

Even the election debates about single sex spaces have fallen into the same trap. In an attempt to be compassionate to a minority the negative effect on the majority is being ignored.

There’s a good reason for moral red lines but in a society which lacks moral leaders, politicians and others have been crossing these lines without any thought for the consequences. It is time to bring back moral red lines and stick to them.