Q: When I asked to be excused from jury duty, the judge berated me for leaving my civic duty to the “poor.” I did not oppose her diatribe, but I make good money and feel it’s more efficient for society if I work, pay taxes, support charities and leave jury duty to others. Isn’t this like leaving other essential functions – trash pickup, policing, dentistry – to others? Alternatively, couldn’t I defer service to a less onerous period, like retirement?
– Anonymous, San Francisco
A: No. Some obligations fall to all citizens – or should, like military service in times of crisis, for example, or driving the speed limit. We do not exempt those with greater incomes from either. Apparently you would prefer to return to the Civil War-era practice of allowing the wealthy to buy their way out of inconvenient duties by hiring replacements. As for your willingness to serve decades from now, the obvious problem is that the court can’t count on your still being in San Francisco. Or still being.
Disconcertingly, your proposal places a greater value on the lives of those who earn more than those who earn less. An ill-paid nurse or librarian would serve on a jury, but a tobacco lobbyist or PGA star would not. Income is hardly a reliable guide to one’s societal value, let alone the value of a life in a broader sense.
What’s more, if you are as smart as you imply, shouldn’t the accused have the benefit of your (and Tiger Woods’) insights? Jurors are meant to be a cross-section of the population, not just those below a particular income level or above retirement age.
Jury service is not only a civic duty; it is also an opportunity – not merely onerous but edifying – to glimpse a part of life you do not regularly see. Granted, jury duty always arrives at a maddeningly inconvenient moment and is sometimes dogged with inefficiencies, but efficiency is not the summum bonum. Much that is worthwhile is notably inefficient: It takes hours and hours to listen to all the Mozart concertos.
…
Q: We are trying to hire a physician at our community health center. To meet patient needs, this doctor must be well-versed in family-planning options. (We do not provide abortions but do refer patients when appropriate.) One candidate’s résumé included religious training that suggested he might be reluctant to perform such tasks. Would it be ethical to ask him about his attitude toward contraception and abortion?
– H.N., Atlanta
A: You may not ask this physician about his religious opinions, but you must ask if he can meet the health needs of the patients, i.e., if he can do the job, and that means talking to him about contraception and abortion.
It would make no difference if his inability to do so derived from spiritual beliefs, personal quirks or weird hallucinations. Not one of these entitles a physician to neglect a patient or obliges you to hire him.
Update: After a conversation about work, not theology, this candidate withdrew his application and took a job at a religious-affiliated institution.
Write to Universal Press Syndicate, 4250 Main St., Kansas City, MO 64111, or e-mail ethicist@nytimes.com.
