“Boy, its a good thing nothing human is living in there!”
This one is so rich with chewy ethical dilemma goodness that I had to interrupt writing another post to get it to you.
New York City’s Commission on Human Rights has ruled that bars and restaurants that refuse to serve alcohol or raw fish to pregnant women are committing discrimination. Such a policy by bars and restaurants violate protections for pregnant women in the city’s Human Rights Law, and constitute illegal bias.
“While covered entities may attempt to justify certain categorical exclusions based on maternal or fetal safety,” the commission said, “using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful.”
Interestingly, eighteen other states have laws that declare that the use of alcohol during pregnancy is child abuse.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz:
Is it ethical to refuse to sell liquor to a pregnant woman, when the establishment is doing so to protect the fetus from the toxic effects of alcohol, or is it unethical discrimination?
I’m going to withhold my own verdict on this for now.
Some issues for you to consider:
Can the law ethically force a citizen to be complicit in inflicting harm on another?
If an owner believed this was what was being done, is there an ethical obligation to defy the law?
How is refusing to sell alcoholic beverages to a pregnant women any more justifiable than refusing to sell ice cream to a fat man, or candy to mother whose child has rotting teeth?
Why is this discrimination? Why isn’t it a policy designed to protect life?
Is this really a measure designed to protect the flanks of the pro abortion movement, by making sure the law doesn’t acknowledge that a fetus is a human life worthy of protection?
________________
Sources: ABA Journal, New York Times
Ethics Alarms 
Your last comment was what came to my mind immediately. Fetuses aren’t worthy of protection.
Isn’t this the city that never sleeps, er, wanted to ban Big Gulps?
Aren’t smokers discriminated against in bars because they are prohibited from smoking there? This is a really bizarre stance.
The issue people take with smoking is other have to breath in your smoke. I think that is different then the issue at hand.
Not really. The child in utero is forced to intake alcohol.
On the contrary, those in bars have the (unreasonable) option to leave, and not be forced to breathe smoke.
Smokers aren’t a protected class because smoking is a choice. The argument could be made that becoming pregnant is a choice, or at least the obvious possible outcome of other choices, and it shouldn’t be a protected class.
This is one of those situations where society realized that it needs children and tried to make bringing children into the world easier and increasing surviveability, only to have the program spat on and abused by unintelligent people who want to have fun without any of the righteous responsibility that is inherent to the ability to create life. It was important to make motherhood easier, it’s not important to enable them to cripple their children in the womb.
Is there any solid scientific evidence that a pregnant woman drinking moderate amounts of alcohol can cause harm to the child? I have not seen any and unless good evidence is produced then leave the women to decide for themselves whether or not to drink.
Well here’s a NYT article that shows what alcohol use during pregnancy can do to a fetus. The evidence has accumulated over the years and there is a significant risk: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/science/alcohol-s-toll-on-fetuses-even-worse-than-thought.html?pagewanted=all
The evidence is all over the place. Here is another study which says that children whose mothers drank lightly during pregnancy did *better * than mothers who didn’t drink at all. Should we force women to consume alcohol now, in the name of the greater good? http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023984,00.html
Waaayyyyy back in 1981, when my oldest was born, it was sometimes recommended that pregnant women have an occasional beer as it was considered good for both as long as it was not done too frequently or in excessive amounts. Something about B vitamins, yeast and relaxation and milk production.
I abhor beer, so I never did, but I know plenty of women who did have a drink here or there to no detriment to their children. If I remember right though, I probably had a margarita at a restaurant with Mexican food once or twice while pregnant, and my kids were all fine.
Is this going to lead to bartenders and restaurant owners having to ask women if they are pregnant (or just fat)? What if they lie? Do they need all women to sign a waiver that they are not pregnant and haven’t had unprotected sex in the past month?
I can totally understand the discomfort and even anger if an obviously pregnant woman “bellys up” to the bar asking for vodka tonics, but I don’t think it is there business to advise (or restrict) what women do with their bodies or their pregnancies.
“Some fetuses seem to escape unscathed, even when their mothers drink heavily, while others are severely damaged. No one knows why. ”
Its seems to be a crap shoot so why not leave it to the mother and not involve the government.
And until the last 100 years all anyone drank was spirits instead of water.
Exactly. Should pregnant women not be sold sushi, or coffee, hot dogs, cold cuts, cantelope, Advil, and the list is truly endless, ever changing, and always conflicting? So far, there have been no studies that show an ill effect with an occasional drink during pregnancy.
I do think pregnancy policing is pretty dumb. If you are the waiter, your job is take my order, verify my age if needed, and deliver my food. Checking someone’s pregnancy status and whether or not a drink is “needed” is not your business. I’ve seen too many people embarrassed by having people assume they were pregnant, and they were not, to think anyone should, or would even want to go there.
The fetus is most vulnerable during the early stages of pregnancy. By the time she is visibly pregnant, a drink will have no effect on the fetus. Give the woman the drink she ordered.
Ok, so what’s a server to do in the 18 states that believe otherwise? Especially if the server agrees with the state? Why is it ok that bartenders are held liable for over serving? Shouldn’t someone’s alcohol tolerance be none of their business as well…?
And to be fair, it’s not your business to tell the server what their job is…that’s a decision to be made between them and their bosses. (I believe I’ve heard something similar somewhere before…something along the line of “keep your hands off my job description!”)
Even in states where a woman can be prosecuted for drinking while pregnant, the woman must have a reason to believe that the drinking would cause harm. Thus far, most doctors agree that the occasional drink is harmless, maybe even beneficial. But because Americans don’t understand flexibility or nuance, and we have alcoholics out there who think an occasional drink means all the drinks all the time, every pregnant woman must be forbidden to drink, just in case. Ridiculous. And now bystanders are getting involved.
I think it is best for businesses that serve food or drinks to not to involve themselves in the state of their customers’ reproductive organs, just as a general rule (unless they are *that* type of business 🙂 ). To have a drink or not is a decision between a woman and her doctor, with the ultimate ethical responsibility lying with the woman.
If a customer walked onto a bus, informed the bus driver that she was on her way to the clinic to get an abortion, and the bus driver was pro-life, is it ethical to refuse to let her on the bus? Nope. Take the money, shut your mouth, and drive. That’s what you are getting paid to do.
Given that more than 10% of women say that they drink during pregnancy when surveyed (undoubtedly higher, as many know it is stigmatized and won’t admit it, and many others drink before even realizing they are pregnant) as a waiter/bartender, it should have already be part of your calculus when you take the job. Some of your customers will be pregnant, and will be expected to be served, just like any other customer. If you have a problem with that, don’t take the job. If you do take the job for some reason, but don’t want to serve the customer, find someone else to do it. If you can’t, then you must serve her, the same as any other customer. You are not her doctor. You have no idea of the particulars of her situation. Keep to your job description. Ethical conundrum solved. Simple.
See, I never put much faith in the moderation of stupid people, and I generally think people are stupid (an insight, I know).
I think there’s a difference between prohibiting the sale, prohibiting the refusal, and having the government not involved, and I reject your false dichotomy. Forcing bartenders to serve anyone hits me as wrong-minded, but forcing bartenders to serve pregnant women, explicitly, hits me as insane.
“I’m sorry ma’am, but you’re cut off.”
“You’re only sayin that caush ‘m pre…pr… knocked up. Faaack yooou.”
Weighing in with some links to discussions of research in this area:
This recent blog post by an MD who specializes in pediatric medical research contains a summary of the research on alcohol during pregnancy: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/theres-plenty-of-blame-to-go-around-with-the-new-cdc-recommendations-for-alcohol-and-pregnancy/
The TL;DR is that there are still a lot of unknowns, but we should probably worry more about the pregnant women who binge drink first.
The same author had an earlier blog post about a study that found light drinking to have no significant ill effects (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-we-tolerate-risk/)
I would agree with Errol that it should be left to a women and her doctor to decide what is best for her unborn child and not a bartender or server. The medical community does not know what amount of alcohol is dangerous for a pregnant women to consume, so most say you should abstain. My conclusion is that it is unethical to refuse to server a pregnant women.
Woman and her doctor, eh? So you think she should have a doctor’s note?
Frankly, you risk being in error when you assume that a woman is pregnant because she “looks” pregnant. There are plenty of medical conditions and lifestyle choices that can make a woman “look” pregnant, and you better bet that the question “And how far along are you?” will be met with indignation in those circumstances.
While I favor protecting the pre-born human being, I can’t see how this could ever be legal or ethical.
Jack,
What’s unfortunate about your frequent ethics quizzes (or at least those on which you make no ruling) is that passive readers like myself never find out what you think because the answer ends up getting buried here somewhere in the commentary.
Sad face.
Whether you serve or refuse, I think the bartender has a defensible position. I think the manner in which the drink is consumed provides more information about responsibility and intent that the bartender can then use to not serve a 2nd drink (probably shouldn’t serve a 2nd drink in any scenario.)
Is pregnancy a “protected class” recognized by U.S. law? Yes. Does that make it a particularly sticky situation? Definitely. There are some questionable ways to get out of serving someone by making observations. Don’t observe that “she was pregnant”. Observe that “she stumbled a little and didn’t seem of mind and competence to be served”. Bartenders must observe patrons for intoxication and have authority (are obligated) to refuse service. I think that could be construed in some ways to justify their decisions. Additionally, they can have liability. If they over-serve someone who gets into a car, they can be sued. If they over-serve a pregnant woman and the baby comes out deformed, I assume they could be sued. Heck, how would they know the baby wasn’t “damaged” already and she’s trying to construct some con to secure money for raising a child with disabilities?
So…talking through this (in writing) as I’ve progressed, I think it’s ethical either way, but responsible and legally defensible to refuse service.
But honestly, this one is a head scratcher and I’m still not sure of my response.
That’s an interesting point. Bartenders are usually required by some level of law to not over-serve, or face liability if anything happens. How ridiculous is it that I don’t think it’s insane to foresee a case where a woman tried to sue for fetal damages because she was served while pregnant.
Thank you for expressing my thoughts. Is it ethical to deny a drink to a pregnant woman? Probably because that would have an impact on the woman’s autonomy and her right to make decisions but defensible. Is it prudent or reasonable to deny said libation to the thirsty customer? Probably but defensible, too. What have seemed to be a good idea at the time (not serving a drink to a pregnant woman) has mired the restaurant in a legal quagmire. As the saying goes, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.
My bigger problem is with the NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy. Talk about a document wholly devoid of any kind of guidance whatsoever. The language is nebulous, vague, contradictory, and terribly unhelpful. “Reasonable accommodations” is not defined or identified. The policy statement speaks more directly about employer – employee relationships, but throws in the amorphous ‘public accommodations’, which could mean just about anything, from pregnancy-neutral park benches to breastfeeding installations in the workplace. This is a perfect example of big government knowing what is best for everyone and screwing the whole thing up.
The policy statement applies to pregnancy and ‘perceived pregnancy, whatever that is. The policy statement declares,
“Pregnancy discrimination is a form of gender-based discrimination under the NYCHRL and is prohibited in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Treating an individual less well than others because of their pregnancy, or perceived pregnancy, is discrimination and a violation of the NYCHRL. To establish disparate treatment under the NYCHRL, an individual must show that the treatment or adverse action was at least in part motivated by discriminatory animus. An individual may demonstrate this through direct evidence of discrimination or indirect evidence that gives rise to an inference of discrimination.” See, III Violations of the NYCHRL’S Prohibitions on Pregnancy Discrimination, Page 2.
The statement goes on to declare prohibitions and their consequences. Page 4 openly makes not serving a drink or food item to a pregnant woman an act of singling out pregnant women under the New York act. Moreover, it is rooted in “[j]udgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities, and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions in employment, housing, and public accommodations.” See, Section 3, Page 4.
This takes any sort of autonomy away from the employer or the restaurants. How can anyone comply with Act? It is virtually impossible to do so, especially where the Act states that if the employee does not directly request an accommodation, the employer must initiate ‘cooperative dialogue’. Failure to initiate such dialogue, even though not requested, is an actionable violation. Kafkaesque, no?
jvb
“using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful.”
What an odd phrase for a legal conversation…. Since when has the laws been interested in what is or is not a gender norm or if something reinforces it? Discrimination, sure. But this just smacks of SJW hackery.
But at the end of the day you’re right. If you look at the burden of proof they have to prove dis-pa-rate-im-pact (I think of that word pejoratively now, even in my head. Kinda like microagressions. TYSRL.), after they prove disparate impact, the accused has to prove the act has… let me quote here… ‘ non-discriminatory justification for the alleged conduct’ at which point the burden shifts again to require more concrete proof of discrimination. Because they use the withholding of drinks and raw fish specifically (under the discriminatory policy section), they have identified the possible justification of the fetal life and disregarded it as mitigation before the argument even comes up. If I were a betting man. And I am. I’d say that this is a scuffle on the battlefield of abortion rights…. Perhaps not designed to forward the cause, but to cut off at the pass anyone who might use this to hamper women’s rights to kill or maim their unborn children.
Who wants to be the posterchild for this? ‘It’s My God DAMNED RIGHT! (To get plastered while pregnant and give my kid FAS, if she even makes it through the crucible of coathangers my OB-GYN is gonna cram up there)’.
“Can the law ethically force a citizen to be complicit in inflicting harm on another?” and “If an owner believed this was what was being done, is there an ethical obligation to defy the law?”
This hits me as a better actionable case than Hobby Lobby or any fucking wedding cake ever. Can a conscientious objector refuse on the basis of belief that unborn life is life, refuse to harm it despite that refusal constituting legal discrimination? Could a doctor refuse to perform an abortion? Ethically, I think it depends of frames of mind. So long as you believe the kid is a kid, boozing it up and risking FAS is cripplingly stupid. If you don’t…
“How is refusing to sell alcoholic beverages to a pregnant women any more justifiable than refusing to sell ice cream to a fat man, or candy to mother whose child has rotting teeth?”
Or bullets to a convict. It’s not MORE or LESS justifiable. But it’s justifiable.
Opinion#1: I think the commission is dead wrong, and if challenged in court, this ruling would immediately overturned.
Opinion#2: For a women to contest a bar owner refusing service, she would have to admit publicly that she wanted to drink while pregnant. Few would ever want to publicly make this statement. In particular, she would have to have been pregnant long enough to show, so she would have the least sympathy possible.
Opinion#3: If a bar owner, or other provider, fears harm to the fetus, they should absolutely disobey this renegade commission. They should be able to get most of their defense privately funded by interest groups, and I think they have a substantial chance of prevailing. Freedom of speech, religion, almost any right on the bar owner’s part should prevail against the more vague right to equal service.
Opinion#4: I do not believe that bar owners, liquor store owners, sushi shop owners, should have a custodial duty to prevent pregnant woman from consuming potentially harmful products. Aside from safe-food standards, they are not medical experts, and should not be held liable for a female customer’s mistake. They are also should not be forced to be complicit in what they believe to be a harmful mistake or abusive action.
I think you nailed it on the head with point two.
Having worked in Special Ed. and seem the numerous drug and alcohol babies that society now is forced to somehow educate, I am appalled at the reasoning that would prosecute a bartender or owner of a bar for refusing to serve an irresponsible pregnant mother. After all, bar patrons are routinely cut off when it is obvious that they’ve had too many and possibly cause a fatal accident. The bar or club is civilly libel for their negligence if they don’t.
I was hoping someone would raise that comparison.
It is one thing to deny an obviously impaired person (pregnant or not) from being over-served. When a drunk is over-served and dies in the gutter 2 hours later from alcohol poisoning or leaves the bar and plows into a family with their car, it is much easier to directly correlate over-serving with a bad outcome.
It is another to deny a (possibly, kinda looks) pregnant, but not drunken woman a drink with their meal, a sushi dinner, or a beer at the bar. I think fear of prosecution if the baby were born with deficits and/or FAS is silly. They would need to provide evidence showing THAT particular incident caused the problem. The mother would need to somehow show that was the only alcohol she had during the entire pregnancy – who is to know if she isn’t nursing a bottle of vodka at home every day? Who knows if she didn’t visit a different bar or eatery every day and partake? How do we prove/show by a preponderance of evidence that this single incident is the causative factor? What if they didn’t know she was pregnant?
It is an unfortunate fact that my husband’s mother smoke, drank and drugged through every one of her pregnancies. While all of her children have some varying degree of emotional issues from the trauma of the abusive and dysfunctional upbringing – they do not all suffer the effects of FAS. The youngest boy seems fine. My husband was born premature, but survived and does not have any known lasting effects. His sister and his oldest brother both show the symptoms of FAS – both, physical and developmental – but were never diagnosed. His mom died in her 50’s, on the toilet like Elvis (who she idolized) with cocaine and alcohol in her body. Denying her service in a bar would not have solved her alcoholism nor would it have protected the fetus in her womb. She did most of her destructive drinking at home, so would have just gone home to drink. She may have even drank more at being pissed from being denied service.
I think the obligatory (at least here in California) warning signs in bars and restaurants that drinking alcohol during pregnancy may be dangerous to the fetus are sufficient.
I definitely concur that the women is ultimately responsible for her consumption, and that bar owners should not be expected to positively identify every women who might be pregnant. But purveyors of alcohol have an ethical duty to minimize the negative impact on society that their product has. While warnings and educational materials are a good start, I do not like the idea that a bar owner must be serve a patron that he or she believes will be harmed by the product to avoid loosing his license due to “discrimination”.
Unlike the acute danger of drinking and driving, society must continue to put the burden on the woman to avoid consumption of product that might harm her child. Thus bar owners should not be liable for a women’s potential birth defects, which could never be positively linked to the particular bar as you say, hampering their informal ability to limit the harm caused by their products by denying service seems like a dangerous path.
So, I’m going to answer Jack’s points of consideration before I tackle the specific situation…
“Can the law ethically force a citizen to be complicit in inflicting harm on another?”
The answer to this varies depending on the definition of harm we’re using, but the variation is between the poles of “unquestionably yes” and “Yes, in some instances”.
-If we define harm broadly, including emotional/spiritual/mental/social states that a person does not desire or consent to, then we end up at the “unquestionably yes” answer, with a perfect example of the law ethically doing this being in subpoenaed (compelled) testimony and evidence during a criminal case: While the recipient of the subpoena may very well believe that answering it will cause harm to the defendant, and have no desire to do so (or, possibly, even a distinct desire NOT to cause the person harm), we still consider the subpoena legally binding and ethical as long as it is used only to compel truthful testimony and evidence, because the harm which it may cause (ranging from fines to imprisonment to death) is being done with the purpose of protecting society itself from bad actors. As such, we are even allowed to inflict harm on the citizen who refuse to inflict harm on his fellow citizen. Similarly, we are allowed to compel citizens to participate in jury duty, despite the very real possibility that they will be expected to cause another citizen harm by imprisonment.
-If we define harm narrowly, discounting imprisonment, emotional distress, and all the rest, and saying that we only care about direct, physical, bodily harm, we still come to the answer of ‘yes, in some cases’. It is murkier, definitely, but examples do exist of situations where we say the law does it and is ethical, such as seat belting minors in a car (yes, the seat belt can cause injuries in an accident, but we point out that it hopefully prevents a greater injury to the minor, and so we allow sanctions to be levied against the adult driver if they fail to ensure the minors in the vehicle are wearing the seat belts while it is in operation). Most of the situations where we say we find such a law ethical, if we are defining harm this narrowly, come to similar rationalizations for the law and utilitarian analyses of the situation the law is meant to govern: Does the law make one citizen complicit in inflicting a small harm on another for the purpose of avoiding a much larger harm to that same or other citizens? If so, and if a utilitarian balancing test swings in the correct direction, we do allow for laws to be passed that compel either actual or potential bodily harm to another person/citizen or the citizen’s own self (drafting individuals into military service, for instance).
“If an owner believed this was what was being done, is there an ethical obligation to defy the law?”
The “this” in the question is presumably a law ethically compelling one citizen to harm another. Since the law is doing so ethically, no, there would be no ethical obligation to defy the law for an individual, and indeed there would be an ethical obligation to obey the law. If, however, a citizen believes the law to be compelling him UNethically, either because it fails to meet the above mentioned balancing test, or because the situation the law is meant to regulate is not one which allows for the justifications necessary to even consider the balancing test, then yes, they would have an ethical obligation to defy that law, and seek to see it changed (as they would have with any unethical law, even if it was not compelling harm to another).
“How is refusing to sell alcoholic beverages to a pregnant women any more justifiable than refusing to sell ice cream to a fat man, or candy to mother whose child has rotting teeth?”
Pedantic Tim is going to be pedantic for a moment: there is a distinction between selling alcohol and serving it which needs to be considered, particularly in the context of the actual court decision. Selling alcohol to someone, such as a liquor store might, does not necessarily inform you that the person is going to be partaking of the alcohol. It is perfectly reasonable that a pregnant woman might be picking up wine or beer for a gathering, with no intention of partaking. Serving alcohol as a a restaurant or bar might is typically done in containers which are intended to be consumed, on premises, by the ordering individual… as such, one can reasonable presume a person asking to be served alcohol intends to partake of the substance.
Tackling the second scenario first, a difference between selling candy to the mother and serving alcohol to a pregnant woman lies in the certainty of the harm you’re inflicting on the third party (the child). With the mother buying candy, while a reasonable observer might believe she intends to give it to the child, they can not be certain without asking her intentions, meaning that the candy can be used as intended without potentially harming the child, meaning there is no certainty (though a very good likelihood) that the candy seller will be contributing to the mother harming the child. Conversely, with the woman being served alcohol, if the alcohol is consumed (as it is intended to be) by the pregnant woman at that time and place, there is complete certainty that it will be partaken of by her fetus/child (pick your nomenclature), which makes it more significantly more justifiable; Technically, serving alcohol to a pregnant woman should violate the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, and possibly also relevant state/local laws on supplying alcohol to a minor. Given the potential penalties (which include imprisonment in some locations), refusal of service could be justified by individual servers or entire establishments on the grounds of various non-ethical considerations, in addition to the ethical argument that the small harm to the mother (refusal of service, which not being bodily harm, might not even be considered harm depending on how one defines the word) is outweighed by the larger potential harm done to a third party (birth defects and any injuries suffered due to the mothers actions while intoxicated, which certainly would qualify as harm even under strict bodily harm definitions of the word).
On the first scenario, the immediate point is that there is no third party directly affected by the fat man’s decision. As such it, is much harder to ethically justify an action which inhibits his autonomy, because there can not be concern that non-consenting parties are being harmed by his actions.
“Why is this discrimination? Why isn’t it a policy designed to protect life?”
Discrimination is technically defined as the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit, which is why one could argue it is technically discrimination, and presumably why the court found it to be such. After all, any given woman may not have been intending to drink enough to harm her (nomenclature of choice), and by denying service to the whole group, you are making a distinction based on their membership in the group (of pregnant women).
There is, however, no reason it can not also be ethical, nor any reason it can’t be a policy designed to protect lives. Just as, if you told a fire chief he had to hire someone who was 80 as a firefighter, because not doing so was age based discrimination, he would most likely respond by pointing out that his discrimination against the elderly is perfectly reasonable, as they are less likely to be able to withstand the physical exertions of their work, and if they encounter trouble during the course of their job, they increase the danger for those they are rescuing as well as themselves.
“Is this really a measure designed to protect the flanks of the pro abortion movement, by making sure the law doesn’t acknowledge that a fetus is a human life worthy of protection?”
Cynical assessment? Yes. One presumes that would be the argument they would advance in rebuttal to the “I can’t legally serve a minor alcohol defense” I mentioned above (“Minors are children and it’s a fetus, not a child!”)
—–
So, after thinking about those and writing them up, I guess I’m ready to take a stab at the original question of the test: Is it ethical to refuse to sell liquor to a pregnant woman, when the establishment is doing so to protect the fetus from the toxic effects of alcohol, or is it unethical discrimination?
A refusal to sell alcohol would not be ethically defensible, since there are many distinct situations in which a pregnant woman might wish to buy alcohol, with no intention to consume it. Without inquiring into a buyer’s intentions, it is difficult to refuse to sell goods to a buyer on ethical grounds, and a seller typically has no legitimate reason or means to inquire into a buyer’s motivations.
A refusal to serve liquor to a pregnant woman is definitely ethically defensible by the establishment issuing that refusal, but it is not ethically obligatory on their part. It is discrimination (since they presumably do not know the specifics of individual pregnancies but are instead applying a blanket rule), but it is also ethically defensible, as being to avoid being complicit greater harm to a third (and hostage) party.
“Is this really a measure designed to protect the flanks of the pro abortion movement, by making sure the law doesn’t acknowledge that a fetus is a human life worthy of protection?”
Cynical assessment? Yes. One presumes that would be the argument they would advance in rebuttal to the “I can’t legally serve a minor alcohol defense” I mentioned above (“Minors are children and it’s a fetus, not a child!”) ~Jack; Tim Hayes
I know I must be getting something wrong here but I see the measure IS “designed to protect life” (however misguided and, agreed, unethical) and as making sure the law DOES acknowledge that a fetus is a human life worthy of protection. What else is it doing except trying to protect the human life or at least the quality of life? It is anti-abortion by definition, no?
I’m not sure how you would reach that conclusion about the ruling (that it is anti-abortion). It explicitly instructs individuals/organizations that they MUST aid a person in performing an action believed to be detrimental to the health and well being of the fetus, and that refusal to aid in those actions on moral/ethical grounds is illegal. While the ruling doesn’t explicitly state it is pro- or anti-abortion, I see a much easier time reconciling a pro-abortion stance with the mandate it contains. It is a short step from saying “you must help someone do a thing which you believe will harm the fetus, because the mother requests it” to saying “You must help them to do this other thing which will definitely harm the fetus, because the mother requests it.”
My cynicism was based on the fact that serving to minors is typically illegal, and could have been used as a reason not to serve the pregnant woman. Combined with Jack’s point about 18 states considering the consumption of alcohol while pregnant to be legal child abuse, a rebuttal on the part of someone in favor of requiring servers to serve pregnant women would be the claim that a fetus is not equivalent to a child which can be abused, and therefore does not need protection from its mother. This same argument might also be used to say that laws against serving to minors, enacted at least partially on the basis of the belief that minors drinking is harmful to themselves and society, would not apply because a fetus can not be a minors; if minors are children, and fetuses aren’t children, then the argument would go that, despite being below the age of majority, a fetus can not be considered a minor, and is not entitled to the protections we would extend to a minor.
The bartender is not serving the fetus (the fetus does not order, nor pay for the drink). There is no law against underage consumption of alcohol in NY, just underage possession. And even that has a parent/guardian exception. So both the pregnant woman and the server are in the clear as far as that goes, even before this law went into effect. 45 states have some sort of exemption for underage drinking. So this new clarifying law is not anything new in that regards.
The bartender/waiter is not a scientist or a doctor. Should the cafeteria guy be allowed to refuse to give the pregnant lady her ham sandwich because he read somewhere that cold cuts cause miscarriages? The barista refusing to give the woman her coffee? The soda guy at the movies not giving the woman her Coca-Cola? The priest refusing to give communion?
It has been pointed out by many people that much of the recommendations given to women during pregnancy are not evidence-based, but more of a cya on the doctor’s and medical community’s part. The evidence that does exist is all over the place, and some studies have found that lightly drinking during pregnancy actually improves the outcomes for the resulting child. But the risk is the woman who is carrying the fetus risk to evaluate, not random people who she is exchanging money in return for goods and services risk to evaluate. Otherwise we can just roll pregnant women up in bubble wrap for the duration of their pregnancies, and never trust their judgment. Everything carries risk. A glass of alcohol is well within the bounds of tolerable risk, even for a pregnant woman. A server cannot ethically substitute his judgment on this for his own. The pregnant woman is (presumably) an adult, and thus must be treated like one.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323514404578652091268307904
“The bartender/waiter is not a scientist or a doctor.
I think this is a foolish distinction, but it’s been used a couple of times. The bartender isn’t a policeman or lawyer either, should he not be able to tell someone they’re cut off, or refuse to return their keys at the end of a binge?
But more than that, the issue here, I think, is more the requirement for direct participation in the act one sees as harmful. Could you imagine, to put this line of thinking forward… “If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one, but perform one on me or I’ll sue you.”?
I’d love for you to tell me what the difference is. Hint: it isn’t that the doctor is a doctor, both professionals in the two situations know how to do their jobs. But on that line of thought, what if a doctor was moonlighting as a bartender and still refused?
Actually… That’s a neat thought all on it’s own. Medicine is very split on this issue, they’re fairly sure that a moderate amount of alcohol will not hamper development…. But they’re also not very eager to define “moderate” because there is also very definitely a point where consumption of alcohol permanently retards nervous development. As has been pointed out: Bartenders aren’t doctors. The mothers we’re talking about: Probably not doctors. Doctors: Probably aren’t going to give you a straight up figure of acceptable consumption. So what’s the point that the bartender is supposed to cut the mother off? When she’s had too much, or her baby has? What’s that point? Or are you willing to admit you don’t care?
Actually… That’s a neat thought all on it’s own. Medicine is very split on this issue, they’re fairly sure that a moderate amount of alcohol will not hamper development…. But they’re also not very eager to define “moderate” because there is also very definitely a point where consumption of alcohol permanently retards nervous development. As has been pointed out: Bartenders aren’t doctors. The mothers we’re talking about: Probably not doctors. Doctors: Probably aren’t going to give you a straight up figure of acceptable consumption. So what’s the point that the bartender is supposed to cut the mother off? When she’s had too much, or her baby has? What’s that point? Or are you willing to admit you don’t care?
I think the server/waiter should cut the mother off at the exact same point he would cut any other patron off. Doctors are fairly sure that some amount of Advil is detrimental to pregnancy, that it will cause a miscarriage, though they are unsure of what that amount may be. Which is why it is on the “no-go” pregnancy list. Should a clerk not sell her a pregnant woman complaining of a headache a single-serve package of Advil? They are aware that some fresh fruits and vegetables are infected with e coli and listeria, which will cause a miscarriage in a pregnant woman. Should a waiter refuse to serve the pregnant lady the salad she ordered? The same with caffeine and a whole host of other things. The no-go pregnancy list includes seafood, vegetables, beef, chicken, eggs, fruit, exercise, high heels, freshly squeezed juice. All of which can cause problems for the pregnancy/fetus under the right scenario/amounts. It’s insane, and the recommendations aren’t quantified on risk, and many not even on actual evidence, but issued merely to cover all possible scenarios, with little thought to the inconvenience of the woman who actually has to carry the fetus for most of a year. http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-health/foods-to-avoid-during-pregnancy/
The point is, a pregnant woman is the best and only person ultimately to assess and weigh the risks in the situation, and act accordingly. Much like the waiter who refuses the milkshake to the fat man, or the vegan waiter who refuses to give the cheeseburger that the mom ordered to the kid because it is “unhealthy and full of toxins”, if you don’t want to do your job, you have entered the wrong profession. Become a nutritionist or doula and advise women to your heart’s content. But this way beyond the legal and ethical scope of a waiter’s job, the first explicitly so by statute, the second because this was a known scenario before the person ever took the job. Much like a Christian Scientist pharmacist, I don’t have any sympathy for someone who gets into a job where they are going to routinely run into a situation that violates their ethical codes, but the customer has every right to expect to receive the service they asked for. Find someone else to fulfill the customer’s order, do your job, or quit. But the customer should not bear the price for your own ethical quandaries in this situation.
“The point is, a pregnant woman is the best and only person ultimately to assess and weigh the risks in the situation, and act accordingly.”
No. No she isn’t. The majority of mothers aren’t doctors, dieticians, midwives or paediatricians. The majority of mothers are on average just as fat, lazy and stupid as the rest of us. Becoming pregnant isn’t a superpower.
Now we demand ourselves autonomy because no one should be more concerned about our well being than we are. In theory, we should make good choices individually, we should put down the cheesecake and walk more. We don’t. And generally, I don’t care: Fuck yourself up, go hard.
But in the case of mothers, I believe that there are two people we are talking about, and taking a risk of permanently debilitating their nervous system because you can’t take 9 months away from booze is cripplingly stupid, irresponsible, and otherwise lame.
This is like arguing that mothers should be able to request thalidomide to deal with pain, and no one is better able to asses or weigh the risk than she is. No, no they should not. That is stupid. Their comfort is not more important than removing the significant risk of a child born with less than four limbs.
I once helped the family of a woman who had FAS, and became pregnant. She, like a disproportionate number of people living with FAS, liked her Budweiser, and so we all told her: “Don’t drink your beer until the baby comes, you’ll hurt your baby.” And she was committed. She was going to have a healthy, whole baby. No beer! Which is why it was such a shock when I was called to pick her up from a bar, where she’d been plastered. “We told you not to drink!” I said. “You told me not to drink my beer!” she answered, “I was doin’ shots.” FAS might as well be hereditary.
“a pregnant woman is the best and only person ultimately to assess and weigh the risks in the situation, and act accordingly.”
Stupidest thing I’ve heard this year.
That’s not to say that anyone can make these decisions for her. No, as with abortion, and so much else in life, bodily autonomy wins and you have every right to be fucking stupid.
That said, I think that people should have the right to opt out of your stupidity.
We aren’t talking about banning women from drinking while pregnant in this case (Although 18 states do, and will call it child abuse) we’re talking about individuals refusing to serve in a bar.
This is like arguing that mothers should be able to request thalidomide to deal with pain, and no one is better able to asses or weigh the risk than she is. No, no they should not. That is stupid. Their comfort is not more important than removing the significant risk of a child born with less than four limbs.
There is a reason why thalidomide is on the prescribed drugs list, and alcohol is not. The danger of thalidomide is considered sufficient that the law only allows an expert who has been rigorously trained (which a waiter is not) is permitted to dispense, under a prescribed set of circumstances.
But in the case of mothers, I believe that there are two people we are talking about, and taking a risk of permanently debilitating their nervous system because you can’t take 9 months away from booze is cripplingly stupid, irresponsible, and otherwise lame.
That is the thing. We know that some studies have shown that large amounts of alcohol harm the infant. There are other studies that show that light drinking in a pregnancy has *better* outcomes than not drinking at all. I don’t expect a waiter to be up on the latest studies regarding the last medical recommendations about products pregnant women are counseled to avoid. Nor should they be. It is not part of their job description.
You could say a woman is irresponsible for eating a ham sandwich during pregnancy, jogging, wearing anything other than flats, having a Coke, eating a Caesar Salad, or basically leaving the house. At some point, it has to stop. Doctors blithely recommend bed rest for pregnant women, despite the fact that there is nothing to really show that it is any more effective than no bed rest at all in the vast majority of circumstances. But since they are the ones confined to a room for half a year, and they are risk averse, they often recommend it under the “better safe than sorry.” And it is crazy that we feel it is ok to confine women and restrict behavior based on such little evidentiary support, and everyone deputizes themselves to be in charge of the woman’s choices in this arena. And alcohol is more contentious in the “restricted substances” list than most, probably due to our society’s Puritan heritage, that we feel moral hectoring is especially urgent. But yeah, if you are a waiter, and a pregnant woman orders her regular black coffee to start, eggs Benedict, tuna salad with goat cheese, fresh-squeezed orange juice, and cantaloupe for dessert, and yes, a glass of wine, give her what she ordered. Your ethical quandaries are not her concern. Do the job you are actually being paid to do, not your self-appointed one.
“a pregnant woman is the best and only person ultimately to assess and weigh the risks in the situation, and act accordingly.”
Stupidest thing I’ve heard this year.
Yes. Suggesting a pregnant 21+ woman is an adult, and thus should be treated as a full adult with full rights in this society is such is an aggressively stupid thing to suggest. Ok.
“The danger of thalidomide is considered sufficient that the law only allows an expert who has been rigorously trained (which a waiter is not) is permitted to dispense, under a prescribed set of circumstances.”
I want you to put a pin in this thought, that because the waiter isn’t rigorously trained, he should have no opinion. Because he isn’t qualified.
“That is the thing. We know that some studies have shown that large amounts of alcohol harm the infant.”
SOME studies have shown large amounts of alcohol harm infants? Citation please. Please provide me a single example that says heavy drinking will not harm an unborn child. One.
“There are other studies that show that light drinking in a pregnancy has *better* outcomes than not drinking at all. I don’t expect a waiter to be up on the latest studies regarding the last medical recommendations about products pregnant women are counseled to avoid. Nor should they be. It is not part of their job description.”
I don’t expect the waiter to be up with the research, I just think it’s reasonable to be uncomfortable around mothers drinking in bars while pregnant, and I think that a bartender should have the right to refuse service. That’s as far as I’m going. Do me a favor: Pull that pin out from earlier. Ask your doctor. Don’t fall back on “Well I saw this article that says that SOME amount MIGHT be beneficial. You’re on the science side, right? Ask your doctor, flat out: “Should mothers drink during pregnancy?” No one recommends it, they’ll say something like “If you’re going to, keep it to a minimum. But NO ONE recommends it. Put that pin back in, we’re gonna use it later.
“Doctors blithely recommend bed rest for pregnant women, despite the fact that there is nothing to really show that it is any more effective than no bed rest at all in the vast majority of circumstances.”
You’re like a fucking anti-vaxxer. Obey the experts until they say something inconvenient, right? That pin from earlier, pull it out again. YOU aren’t a doctor, listen to the doctors, the doctors have training, often specifically for this. You’ve spent so many characters discrediting your opponents as being on the wrong side of science, and then you disregard the science. Pin back in.
“Yes. Suggesting a pregnant 21+ woman is an adult, and thus should be treated as a full adult with full rights in this society is such is an aggressively stupid thing to suggest. Ok.”
I just want to recap what I said. Because that isn’t what I said.
““a pregnant woman is the best and only person ultimately to assess and weigh the risks in the situation, and act accordingly.” is the “Stupidest thing I’ve heard this year.”
PULL THAT PIN OUT JUST ONE MORE TIME. You! deery, You! just said that the lack of a medical expertise means that someone isn’t qualified to have an opinion. You’re not even consistent with yourself. At the end of the day, a mother WILL make her own decisions, but they can be some of the stupidest decisions on the planet, and god forbid she go through the drudge of nine boozeless months on the advice of her qualified physician.
Medical recommendations change all the time. At the end of the day, we entrust mentally competent adults to make decisions about their bodies, even if it might go against medical advise. And in pregnancy, it is literally almost impossible for a woman to go about her daily business of living without running into one of the “no-no’s” on the list.
One of the concerns women have now is that so few of these recommendations regarding pregnancy seem evidence-based. Once upon a time in the very recent past (about 5 years ago and earlier), women were routinely given episiotomies (cutting the tissue between the anus and vagina to make a bigger opening) when giving birth. It was considered easier on everyone, and helpful to the mother to prevent tearing. Millions of women were given these throughout the decades. Someone finally had the bright thought to ask, “well, is this necessary?”, and it turns out, the answer was that no, it was not necessary. Women actually recovered faster from tearing than from episiotomy. But it only took a few decades for the medical community to catch up.
Like society at large regarding pregnancy, the medical community can be very paternalistic. And alcohol during pregnancy is far from settled science, though most agree that a glass of wine is harmless by the time a woman is visibly pregnant. And if that certainty eludes scientists and doctors, it is certainly beyond the ken of most waiters to evaluate and enforce on a third party.
I want you to put a pin in this thought, that because the waiter isn’t rigorously trained, he should have no opinion. Because he isn’t qualified.
He can have an opinion. Of course. Should he be enforcing this opinion on an unrelated 3rd party who is there to receive the service that they paid for? No.
As for the rest of what you are blabbing about, some people are paid to practice their medical opinion. We give them exclusive rights to decide who gets what drug. This is what the law requires. Therefore, if you want certain types of drugs, those people are the gatekeepers we must pass through to get those types of drugs. And in return for this gatekeeper status, they are supposed to have developed an expertise in this area. Alcohol does not qualify for this type of drug, nor does a waiter qualify as a person who has the expertise in this matter.
Pregnancy is a risky venture. And I get it. But we cannot manage all risks down to zero. In life full-grown adults have to be entrusted to make their own decisions, for themselves and those in their care, even ones I may disagree with. If I’m a waiter, and I see a mom ordering a double bacon cheeseburger with extra fries and an extra large chocolate shake for her grossly obese kid, I would purse my lips and deliver the order. If I couldn’t do that, I would not be a waiter. A glass of wine is no different.
Sorry to hear about your FAS experience, but how is that not an example of “if only one child?” One glass of wine, even two glasses of wine don’t cause FAS. FAS is a crapshoot. Some women drink heavily during pregnancy, and deliver normal babies. Others drink heavily and don’t. But in no case has it been shown that one serving of alcohol has caused any harm to a fetus. Those results don’t exist.
In the end, crazy as it might be, if she is a competent adult, we must actually trust a woman to be able to decide whether she wants to drink a glass of wine while pregnant. Or have a cup of coffee. Or a salad. Or a tuna sandwich. Or exercise. Or drive. I don’t think ethically anyone should self-appoint themselves the police of someone else’s legal behavior. If a woman wants an explicitly legal service like in NY, you give it to her. End of story.
“As for the rest of what you are blabbing about, some people are paid to practice their medical opinion. We give them exclusive rights to decide who gets what drug. This is what the law requires. Therefore, if you want certain types of drugs, those people are the gatekeepers we must pass through to get those types of drugs. And in return for this gatekeeper status, they are supposed to have developed an expertise in this area. Alcohol does not qualify for this type of drug, nor does a waiter qualify as a person who has the expertise in this matter.”
Let’s be real clear: You don’t care what the law requires, because as has been pointed out: in 18 other states, it is illegal to drink while pregnant, and you’ve disregarded that. You’re using this state’s law because it suits your argument, and using an authority that you only recognize when it’s convenient to make your point. That isn’t honest. It the law an authority or isn’t it, and what do you do when it’s contradictory?
More: I think that any doctor who read what you just wrote would probably want to slap you. A doctor isn’t JUST a gatekeeper to drugs. That’s probably the second stupidest thing I’ve read this year. A doctor has gone through seven years of post secondary education, specifically to gain expertise in the field of medicine. Who the hell do you think you are? You don’t get to casually disregard modern medicine in favour of your god damned Buzzfeed listicles and pretend that you’re intellectually grounded.
“Pregnancy is a risky venture. And I get it. But we cannot manage all risks down to zero. In life full-grown adults have to be entrusted to make their own decisions, for themselves and those in their care, even ones I may disagree with.”
I don’t care what you agree with. And while I disagree with a mother drinking any amount of alcohol, I understand that I cannot stop her. But that’s not what we’re really talking about. It’s how you desperately want to spin it, because treating this like it’s a woman’s rights issue makes it so much clearer and easier for you to handle, she HAS the right to drink like a fish (outside of 18 states), I’m arguing that the bartender should have the right to opt-out. This is like requiring a doctor to perform an abortion, a reasonable person (of which I realize that you are not) should be able to look at this and understand how a bartender being asked to serve a pregnant woman should be able to fall back on conscientious objection (If you were even a little bit worried about real legal terms).
“Sorry to hear about your FAS experience, but how is that not an example of “if only one child?””
Because it’s thousands of children annually. Poor children. Minority children. Native children here in Canada, Black children down there in America. This is a great example of why I think Liberals hate babies and don’t really care about minorities. Making sure middle class white women can drink wine in a restaurant is more pressing than making sure that minority children aren’t being crippled.
“One glass of wine, even two glasses of wine don’t cause FAS. FAS is a crapshoot. Some women drink heavily during pregnancy, and deliver normal babies. Others drink heavily and don’t. But in no case has it been shown that one serving of alcohol has caused any harm to a fetus. Those results don’t exist.”
First off: I’m assuming you’re abandoning your earlier claim that there are studies that show heavy drinking does not cause damage to unborn children?
Second: You’re right, as far as I know, in that a single serving would not cause harm. Are you suggesting that the limit for a pregnant woman be a serving, and then the waiter can refuse? No, you argued that the woman MUST be served as any other customer. You’re “one serving” argument isn’t honest, you don’t mean it.
“In the end, crazy as it might be, if she is a competent adult, we must actually trust a woman to be able to decide whether she wants to drink a glass of wine while pregnant.”
Again, being able to have sex and become pregnant isn’t a superpower. It happens thousands of times daily to some of the stupidest examples of humanity to ever walk the earth. The test has never been competency, because a lot of people would fail that test. I’d argue that because we’re specifically talking about women who want to drink while pregnant, we’ve already set the bar pretty low.
“End of story.”
I wish I was a bartender in New York, and I wish a pregnant woman would come to my establishment, and order some jager, so I could refuse her and start the legal proceedings. Because I’m almost certain it would not stand up to a constitutional challenge. This might be the end of the story only because we might not find a pregnant woman stupid enough to push the issue.
Let’s be real clear: You don’t care what the law requires, because as has been pointed out: in 18 other states, it is illegal to drink while pregnant, and you’ve disregarded that. You’re using this state’s law because it suits your argument, and using an authority that you only recognize when it’s convenient to make your point. That isn’t honest. It the law an authority or isn’t it, and what do you do when it’s contradictory?
You make assertions, but you don’t have anything to prove your contentions. I have not been able to find anything (with an admittedly cursory search) where pregnant women in 18 (or any) states can be prosecuted solely on the basis that she had a drink while pregnant. In some states, if the baby shows signs of FAS, and there is other evidence that she drank excessively during pregnancy, she can be prosecuted. There is an emphasis on the excessive. And despite the number of FAS children, the prosecutions are scant, mostly because prosecutors and lawmakers are wary about prosecuting women who are doing a perfectly legal activity, the uncertainty in a FAS diagnosis, and they want to avoid some constitutional challenges. When damage to the fetus is used to prosecute women, it almost involves illegal drugs, as it is easier to show a crime has been committed then. I already talked about this upthread.
More: I think that any doctor who read what you just wrote would probably want to slap you. A doctor isn’t JUST a gatekeeper to drugs. That’s probably the second stupidest thing I’ve read this year. A doctor has gone through seven years of post secondary education, specifically to gain expertise in the field of medicine.
I don’t you’ve read what I written then. Or at least, not closely enough.
I’m arguing that the bartender should have the right to opt-out. This is like requiring a doctor to perform an abortion, a reasonable person (of which I realize that you are not) should be able to look at this and understand how a bartender being asked to serve a pregnant woman should be able to fall back on conscientious objection (If you were even a little bit worried about real legal terms).
I guess I feel putting together drinks, delivering food, or making coffee can’t be compared to the functions of a doctor. Forcing an unwilling doctor to perform a surgery they don’t want to perform can end in the loss of a life. Forcing a bartender to pour a drink or a waiter to deliver a meal should not vary from a willing to an unwilling person. I don’t think people in the roles of delivering simple, routine services that require little training and customer collaboration should able to discriminate in the people they deliver these services to. It would be very difficult for society to function that way, and personal judgment is not usually required for those types of roles. So, no conscientious objection for the bartender, waiter, or barista. Toss up for the hairdresser, the decorator, or photographer. Yes, for the doctor, the lawyer, the writer, etc.
Because it’s thousands of children annually. Poor children. Minority children. Native children here in Canada, Black children down there in America. This is a great example of why I think Liberals hate babies and don’t really care about minorities. Making sure middle class white women can drink wine in a restaurant is more pressing than making sure that minority children aren’t being crippled.
Still an “if only one child” argument. Dress it up however you want.
First off: I’m assuming you’re abandoning your earlier claim that there are studies that show heavy drinking does not cause damage to unborn children?
I never made such a claim. Please utilize your reading skills. “We know that some studies have shown that large amounts of alcohol harm the infant. There are other studies that show that light drinking in a pregnancy has *better* outcomes than not drinking at all. The contrast there is obviously about world of studies about alcohol during pregnancy, the comparison between heavy drinking and light drinking, not studies that show heavy drinking is good for a fetus versus other studies that show that is bad. Try again.
The following is the result of everybody posting like lightning, me like thule fog. So I took advantage.
Deery: “The point is, a pregnant woman is the best and only person ultimately to assess and weigh the risks in the situation, and act accordingly.”
HT: “No. No she isn’t.”
Me: “Yes. Yes, she is.” She, on the advice of her professional medical carers, and her babydaddy, in that order, as far as the medical aspects go … as far as if, what kind, how much and when to drink alcohol sensibly goes.
And after that . . .
Tim LeVier: “Bartenders must observe patrons for intoxication and have authority (are obligated) to refuse service
Me: Exactly. From what I can find out, the bartender is liable for the dangerous driving … not for the condition of the fetus (if he – or she – has assessed the situation reasonably, obviously), even though that condition would no doubt be taken into account in any legal action against the mother.
———————
This is one of those times I wish this was one of those blogs that had separate threads running concurrently so people who wanted to or felt the need to argue at length or run off at the keyboard (self included) could do so without interfering with others’ train of comment, or keep a poor reader going down and down into the abyss.
My heart bleeds for your beleaguered train of thought, penn.
This…. Myth…. That the people making decisions are best suited to make those decisions is mind boggling to me. By this logic, depressed people who commit suicide are right, and we shouldn’t try to stop them, ever. No, no person is the best person to make any decision on by virtue of the decision falling to them. In fact, I’d argue that it’s hardly ever true that the person making a decision is the best person to make that decision, even if they might be the best person involved. No amount of pearl clutching fainting couch liberalism is going to change that.
We’re talking about mothers who choose to drink while pregnant for crying out loud. This isn’t the best and brightest women have to offer us! It’s not a good choice! No doctor on Earth will prescribe alcohol to pregnant mothers. The best your argument has is that they will tell you if you’re going to do the stupid thing you seem bent on doing, to keep it at a low level. And if a mother chooses to drink during pregnancy against the risk of delivering a baby that is permanently crippled, I think they’re an idiot. They have every RIGHT to be an idiot, but I have every right to judge them. And while they have every right to be an idiot, I don’t think they have the right to haul the rest of humanity along into stupidity along them. No one should have the right to force someone to serve booze to a pregnant mother.
This…. Myth…. That the people making decisions are best suited to make those decisions is mind boggling to me.
In a free society, it is hard to have it any other way. I don’t want to live in the dystopia you and Jack are prescribing where perfect strangers can withhold perfectly legal routine services from an adult, based on that person’s idea of “what’s best.”
Though fwiw, I do think suicide in some circumstances is a perfectly reasonable response to the choices a person might have ahead of them.
We’re talking about mothers who choose to drink while pregnant for crying out loud. This isn’t the best and brightest women have to offer us! It’s not a good choice!
Women who drink lightly during pregnancy tend to be older, wealthier, and more educated than women who don’t. Speculation is that they do tend to be up on the latest findings, and make an informed decision that abstaining from drinking altogether is just a pointless sacrifice.
According to Sarah Horvath, an OB-GYN and the current Gellhaus Fellow at American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors today are much more in tune with the reality that being pregnant doesn’t strip a woman of her capacity to reason. “The goal has become to give the patient as much information as possible while respecting her autonomy to make a decision,” Horvath said. “There has, and will continue to be, a decided shift over the last couple of decades from paternalism to autonomy in the doctor-patient relationship. This is true in medicine in general, but nowhere do we see it more than in pregnancy and reproductive medicine.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/11/nyc_s_pregnancy_discrimination_law_is_a_sign_of_the_demise_of_the_bubble.html
I’m done with the irrelevancies, this has taken up too many words as it is. I think that the position you’re calling for in unsupported by medical science, instead relying on places like Slate, for fuck sake, as citations. Slate! well, Slate says it’s ok! Let’s all jump off a bridge.
You completely ignored a point I made earlier: If someone is actually stupid enough to force the issue, I think this is probably the best case scenario for a conscientious objector exemption that we could ever find. And then, once the ruling comes don, you can live with me in “distopia!”
“But this way beyond the legal and ethical scope of a waiter’s job, the first explicitly so by statute, the second because this was a known scenario before the person ever took the job.”
The first explicitly by statute in New York. Period. In 18 other states, drinking while pregnant is considered felony child abuse.
And second… .A known scenario before the person took the job? What fucking planet are you on? How many pregnant mothers do you know that stop by the bar for a couple on their way home from prenatal? Jesus Christ.
I’m just getting angry. I’m out.
For the record, I have seen plenty of pregnant woman sipping on wine in bars and restaurants. It never raised an eyebrow.
The first explicitly by statute in New York. Period. In 18 other states, drinking while pregnant is considered felony child abuse.
Drinking to *excess* might be considered felony child abuse (though the law is far from settled even in those states.) That is something that is determined after the fact, not before. Consequentialism at its best. There is a reason why these statutes are usually used to prosecute women who use illicit substances, not legal ones. The rabbit hole goes pretty deep, very quickly. Would it also be felony child abuse to you to prosecute a woman who drank coffee regularly, went into labor early, and had a very pre-term baby that suffered brain damage as a consequence?
“For the record, I have seen plenty of pregnant woman sipping on wine in bars and restaurants. It never raised an eyebrow.”
Honestly, I think you just lied to me. The nature of my job means that I eat out damn near every day, lunch and dinner, and I don’t even see many pregnant women in restaurants, period, never mind in restaurants drinking. And you have a history of being dishonest and saying basically anything you think will forward your point. I don’t believe you.
Honestly, I think you just lied to me. The nature of my job means that I eat out damn near every day, lunch and dinner, and I don’t even see many pregnant women in restaurants, period, never mind in restaurants drinking.
I am probably around more fertile-aged women than you are, but ok. And you don’t have to believe anything I say, it’s not an obligation on your part.
“I am probably around more fertile-aged women than you are, but ok.”
*snort*
I’d like to add a quiz question.
Can you ethically refuse to let a woman of child-bearing age skydive, ride a roller coaster, take judo lessons, drink, or smoke because she could be pregnant?
No.
Is it ethical for a car salesman to sell a car to someone knowing that auto accident is one of the largest causes of death and injury in the country, and the largest for children – far larger than FAS? What if the buyer had mentioned they never wear seatbelts? Is it okay to sell a bicycle to a child, knowing they stand a good chance of falling off someday and suffering injury or death? Does that make you somehow complicit? Since you can’t reliably determine who is and who is not pregnant, you can’t correlate light drinking with fetal harm. You can’t even always correlate heavy drinking with FAS, erring so much on the side of “ethical” caution seems ridiculous.
If you can’t enforce a law or policy without violating the privacy of an entire sex : “Are you pregnant? You appear pregnant.”, “Is there any chance you might be pregnant?”, “Have you had unprotected or poorly protected sex within the last month?”, “When was the date of your last period?”, “Will you sign a statement verifying you are not pregnant, releasing me from liability if your child is born any way other than perfect?”
I will posit that it is UNethical due to the burden it places on wait staff, bartenders and bar and restaurant owners AND the invasion of privacy it would bring to all women of child-bearing age. The obligatory warning sign at the door should be sufficient.
They are within their right to not over serve a pregnant woman, or anyone, but they cannot use possible or apparent pregnancy as an inquisition into a woman’s private medical, sexual or reproductive status.
On a different but very slightly related subject:
I’m waiting for some NC mattress salesperson to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple because they may be using it for purposes that violate their moral or religious beliefs.
These rhetorical situations are ridiculous. You know that right? You know it’s not the same thing?
“Is it ethical for a car salesman to sell a car to someone knowing that auto accident is one of the largest causes of death and injury in the country,
and the largest for children – far larger than FAS?”
I’m going to share a secret with you: Most mothers aren’t stupid enough to drink while pregnant. If the vast majority of mothers drank like the vast majority of mothers drove, those numbers would invert.
“Is it okay to sell a bicycle to a child, knowing they stand a good chance of falling off someday and suffering injury or death?”
Sure. And here’s where it really starts getting stupid, by the way. Because if you didn’t want to sell children bikes, because you thought they’d kill themselves, then you wouldn’t be selling bikes in kids sizes, would you? Remember: No one is telling women not to drink, nothing is keeping mothers from buying booze and getting schnookered at home, or at locations that hold the same liberal values as the mothers we’re talking about. We’re talking about the requirement to sell.
“Does that make you somehow complicit?”
Not if you don’t feel it does.
“Since you can’t reliably determine who is and who is not pregnant, you can’t correlate light drinking with fetal harm.”
You can ask. And that’s not really the point: The science is very much out on the point where “light drinking” becomes concerning. Even health officials who say that light drinking might not harm your child caution that it’s still best to abstain. Again… What’s more pertinent is the requirement for specific performance on the part of the bartender.
“You can’t even always correlate heavy drinking with FAS, erring so much on the side of “ethical” caution seems ridiculous.”
You’re insane. This is like asserting that vaccines cause autism. It’s not called Fetal Alcohol Syndrome because it’s caught like a virus. Jesus.
Aside: One of the most indelible memories I have of nursing school were two clinicals at an urban county hospital of babies with FAS – one observed in pediatric ICU, another in the nursery.They couldn’t be held, they couldn’t be comforted, they could scarcely be fed; and until they were, warily, sedated their cries were incessant and weak from exhaustion, they jittered so. The one in Nursery was assigned to two of us: he was bluish from poor oxygen intake, vital signs poor, one ear and one hand deformed. On the third day when we had begun to cope, a healthy ten-on-the-Apgar-scale baby was added to our care, and we finished out the two weeks with new ideas of what parenthood might entail (and my partner reconsidering Pediatrics as a future). For the last hour of the last shift, the Head Nurse sat us down in a corner to read the infants’ charts. They were almost identical in every detail, including history of alcohol consumption. Then the HN uncovered the names and some personal information, which we’d thought was protected for the sake of confidentiality: the two children were cousins, their mothers identical twins – medium-to-heavy regular drinkers including through pregnancy, at home and away.
Lessons learned?
#1 As far as the human body is concerned — which means: as far as making health decisions is concerned — there is no 100%. NEVER. There are only odds. Or what Jack calls “moral luck.”
#2 Non-scientific material read (including quotes from or even summaries from bona fide objective medical research reports which most often lead, as they should, to more research rather than “answers”) has better odds: it is 99% (my estimate) slanted for highest drama, eliciting either your fear or your ecstatic relief. Even when purporting to be “serious,” it is designed to be misleading one way or the other.
#3 Forget the odds. Only two things are unlikely to lie to you: Your doctor and your own body. Listen to them. Trust them (if not, you can change the doctor part – it is not advisable to change bodies unless you need to choose another bathroom) Tell one whatever the other says and allow them to draw conclusions and make suggestions. You will feel best when both agree.
#4 NYC’s Commission on Human Rights has medical odds on its side, but 100% absolutely no way of calculating them per person if for no other reason than one of the (few) proven points about alcohol and pregnancy is that the first trimester tends to the greater cause of FAS . . and the first three months are the least likely to show. Foiled again!
Goes without saying — but I will anyway — that the decision is unethical as well.
And perhaps airlines should force women to pee on sticks before they get on planes to South America too.
Seriously people. Yes, there is a certain percentage of pregnant women who abuse their bodies while they are pregnant.
But the vast majority of pregnant women? Not only do we care about our bodies and fetuses, we obsess over them. We read every article, we keep lists of prohibited foods in our purses, and we don’t take any drugs unless forced to by a doctor. (This last item happened to me — I was very ill and my ob/gyn threatened to admit me to the hospital unless I agreed to take antibiotics).
While I never drank alcohol (my body didn’t want it during my pregnancies), my doctor did advise me that I could have a glass of beer or wine after my first trimester. The only “bad” things I did were that I got my hair dyed twice and I had 1-2 diet cokes a day. While I didn’t need to get my hair dyed, I will take anyone to the mat for telling me that I couldn’t have caffeine. But for those diet cokes, I would have fallen asleep on the beltway every day, possibly killing me and my unborn child. Because yes, pregnancy makes you crazy fatigued. I remember once going into a Starbucks (I was very pregnant) and the idiot barista lectured me about caffeine because I ordered a small iced tea. I could have decked him.
I’m not as sure. When the customer is challenged or bent on getting drunk, that falls under the right to refuse serving. I don’t really think we need more nannies/laws to prevent having one drink once in a while if pregnant. I can’t believe the temperance people managed to sneak a new Prohibition into 18 states in the 21st century. Didn’t they lean anything from Al Capone and St Valentines day massacre? It’s not their business to police non drunk people, not at all, Do we really have to relearn all the hard lessons from the last century?
Great debate, everyone, and very helpful. I’m finally ready to offer my answer.
Trumpets please!
The question was: “Is it ethical to refuse to sell liquor to a pregnant woman, when the establishment is doing so to protect the fetus from the toxic effects of alcohol, or is it unethical discrimination?”
It’s ethical. The proprietor has no ethical obligation to do so, but if he or she reasonable and genuinely believes that a drink will or MIGHT harm the gestating child, he or she can ethically say: “You should not be doing that, and I won’t enable it.”
After each successive drink, that position becomes more reasonable. What if there were one particular beverage known to increase the likelihood of birth defects by 100%? 50%? Guaranteed birth defects? Would blocking the pregnant woman be ethical then? Of course it would.
I didn’t ask whether doing this was ethically obligatory, but at some point, it has to be. The question of whether liquor really is dangerous to fetuses is irrelevant. The question is whether the individual believes, reasonably, that the fetus is at risk. How about, “If you are going to keep punching yourself in teh stomach, go do it someplace else”?
Yes, it would similarly be ethical (though probably not legal) to refuse to sell a double scoop ice cream cone to an obese mother for an obese 10-year old. It wouldn’t be unethical not to, unless the vendor really believed that he was helping to kill the kid. Yes, I would suggest that the vendor needs to find another line of work.In my brief stint as a defense attorney, I resolved not to defend any more junkies by getting a non-jail pleas deal and sending them back on the street to kill themselves.
The ruling is UNETHICAL. It’s not “discrimination” just because only pregnant women are involved. Progressive lunacy has stretched prohibited discrimination into the realm of justified distinctions, and that slippery slope needs sand, fast. Discrimination would be if pregnant men were allowed to drink like fish. The act is done for the benefit of the unborn child, and thus presumably for the mother as well. Again, what if the mother WANTS to hurt her gestating kid, as she has a Constitutional right to do? Fine. NOT IN MY ESTABLISHMENT; GET OUT.
Would NY argue that a proprietor who stopped mothers from verbally abusing their toddlers was discriminating against mothers? Oh, probably.
My call: The proprietor looking out for the fetus is ethical, even if he is wrong on the science. The NY ruling is unethical.
I was 100% sure that you would come down exactly the way that you did. It wasn’t really a surprise. To ask the question is to answer it. 😊
The proprietor is looking out for the fetus is ethical, even if he is wrong on the science. The NY ruling is unethical.
So any asshole with a half-baked theory can trump my right to have the service that I’m paying for? And this applies not just to fetuses, but children as well? Nope. Still have to disagree. We have mechanisms in place for suspected abuse of a child. And under your theory, a pregnant woman is very much subject to not being allowed to do anything, eat anything, or drink anything other than triple filtered water. Because everyone has a theory and beliefs. And this would apply not just to the owner of the establishment, but anyone who had anything to do with the delivery of the service.
The hostess could refuse to seat a woman, because she felt that quiet environments were best for the baby. The busboy refuses to deliver bread, because he read about the evils of gluten, and he didn’t want the fetus harmed. We’ve gone over the extensive list of foods that a pregnant woman supposedly shouldn’t have, which includes everything. The bathroom attendant forbids the woman entry, because public restrooms are known hotbeds of e coli, dontcha know. The shoe guy will only let her buy sneakers. The taxi driver informs her of the benefits of exercise before driving off, refusing to let her in.
No one would or should tolerate such policing of perfectly legal behavior from members who there explicitly to perform a service for them. Women don’t become public property and simpleminded children just because they are pregnant. They are still thinking, vital members of the society who are perfectly capable of making decisions about what risks to take and how to live, just like everyone else. It is not ethical to subject someone who is there to get a service and be treated in the same manner as anyone else to a difference in treatment based on your beliefs, even if those beliefs are sincere. Especially because they have not hired you to give an opinion on this matter. If you can’t treat your customers equally, find another line of business. Other people seeking a explicitly legal service cannot bear the price for your own ethical quandaries. That is the only logical ethical outcome. It would be very difficult for a large, diverse society to function in any other way.
“So any asshole with a half-baked theory can trump my right to have the service that I’m paying for?” No, I said it has to be objectively reasonable. You are just spinning out unreasonable harassment.
Answer the multiple drink hypothetical!
So any asshole with a half-baked theory can trump my right to have the service that I’m paying for?” No, I said it has to be objectively reasonable. You are just spinning out unreasonable harassment.
The hypothetical actions I used are all based on recommendations of doctors, just like the alcohol recs. Women are advised to get stay away from prolonged loud noises, be wary of triggering future gluten allergies, wear flats, avoid e coli, avoid fresh juice because of contamination concerns, avoid regular juice because of gestational diabetes concerns, sodas because of sugar/caffeine, regular tap water because of lead and parasites, distilled because it doesn’t have the trace minerals, wear only cushioned flats, etc. I just spun out what the world would look like if everyone took it upon themselves to police a pregnant woman’s choices, based on the current recommendations of the medical community regarding pregnancy. So, these strangers beliefs are considered reasonable. Their actions based on these beliefs aren’t, but that is the crux of the matter, no? I’ve already seen two women who have had baristas attempt to lecture them on their coffee requests because the barista felt that pregnant women should only order decaf. Both of them were pretty assertive and shut it down quickly, but it happened.
After each successive drink, that position becomes more reasonable. What if there were one particular beverage known to increase the likelihood of birth defects by 100%? 50%? Guaranteed birth defects? Would blocking the pregnant woman be ethical then? Of course it would.
Like thalidomide or Accutane as examples? There is no way such a product would be on the open market, because so many women don’t realize they are pregnant until the well into the pregnancy. Which is how we know that while alcohol might have some deleterious effects, it is probably only in very large, regular amounts (the poison is in the dose, as they say). Drinking while pregnant is incredibly common, mostly because so many women don’t know they are pregnant yet. Not coincidentally, this is supposed to be the most dangerous time to drink, yet the number of children who have FAS is in the thousands, not the millions it logically should be if alcohol was such a danger a woman should be prevented from having a drink by a perfect stranger.
So, to answer your question more clearly, I think that a bartender should cutoff a woman at the same rate he should ethically cutoff anyone else, before they reach the stage of impairment. For most people, that is no more than a drink or two per hour, depending on weight and a few other factors. I think restaurants and bars like to over-serve as general rule because it helps their bottom line, but that is an issue for another day.
The rationalization you have evoked is “The Reverse Slippery Slope.”
9. The Reverse Slippery Slope
Turning the slippery slope argument around, defenders of unethical conduct like to project legitimate criticism of genuinely harmful conduct into apocalyptic over-reach and ridiculously broad application of the principles at issue. “Irresponsible not to put our kids in safe car seats? What’s next, mandating special armor and helmets when they are just walking? Will we be required to have soft foam around their little chairs in the home in case they fall off?” This attempts to make the original, legitimate point seem unreasonable by raising related but absurd variations that are self-evidently unreasonable.
On the bright side, you gave me a new rationalization in the previous post, which I apologize in advance for not being able to name after you. It’s genuinely useful, and I thank you. It will be up tomorrow.
Thanks. I appreciate it. (no sarcasm). Though how is that distinguishable from just a regular slippery slope?
I will note that some of the things I have noted in the scenario have already happened. These were not that crazy:
I have heard of several incidents of pregnant women being denied alcohol in restaurants and bars and each one has been met with outrage and plenty have gone viral on the internet.
There is widespread research and strong warnings about excessive consumption of alcohol in pregnancy, but many people still rightly accept that it is our decision, and no one else’s, if we are to have the odd glass during those long nine months.
Never had I heard the same reaction to caffeine, yet after relaying the experience to my friends via Facebook it seems the pregnancy police are not simply patrolling bars and cafes.
One friend reported that she was denied a soft-serve ice cream while pregnant; another said she was refused service when she tried to buy unpasteurised cheese in a British supermarket.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/pregnancy-police-its-my-choice-to-drink-caffeine-not-a-baristas-20160125-gmdy3r.html#ixzz48Ucr1g8O
Perfect. Thanks Deery.
Jack, how about answering my hypothetical? Can an airline refuse to fly pregnant women to Brazil?
Different issue. They can’t legally refuse to fly anyone anywhere.
Good question, though. Should the US ban pregnant women from flying to Brazil.
No. The U.S. can, and has, “encouraged” pregnant women not to fly to South America.
The zika virus apparently is at its worst when a woman is in her first trimester. Many women do not even know that they are pregnant during their first few months. In fact, I met a pediatric nurse this week who told me that she didn’t know she was pregnant until 12 weeks. A pediatric nurse! Most women aren’t showing at this point, and a pee test would be required to verify a pregnancy.
Any policy allowing women to be refused a drink, or travel, or soaking in a hot tub is just optics. Fetuses are at their most vulnerable during the first trimester. After that, while it isn’t a great idea to drink heavily, expose the kid to zika, or marinate in almost boiling water, the baby probably is going to be fine — unless the mother makes a habit of doing it. So, any refusal really is playing into the ick! factor because an obviously pregnant woman’s baby will be fine. If bartenders really care about the health of fetuses, they need to administer pee tests before every happy hour to all the twenty-somethings.
“After that, while it isn’t a great idea to drink heavily, expose the kid to zika, or marinate in almost boiling water, the baby probably is going to be fine — unless the mother makes a habit of doing it.”
Amazing statement. Would you allow your children to be unnecessarily subjected to adverse conditions if they “probably” would be fine?
No, I wouldn’t. But I am on the other end of the spectrum. I wouldn’t even take an aspirin while pregnant even if it felt my head was being split apart by jackhammers. I also stopped exercising because I feared miscarriage — even though there is an equal body of evidence stating that moderate exercise is beneficial during pregnancy.
But I also read, am fairly intelligent, and listened to everything that my awesome doctor had to say. And my doctor told me that a drink or two was fine during pregnancy.
So no, we shouldn’t stop a woman from having a drink or two, or boarding a plane to another country. But, if we are going to go down this horrible path, then do it right — pee tests for all women. At the grocery store (cheese), restaurants (sushi), Subway (cold cuts), farmers’ markets (melons), pharmacies, bars, and border crossings to South American countries. And the skinnier the woman is, the more likely that any potential fetus will be hurt, so screen accordingly.