Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Intolerant tolerance

G Khushf1

  • 1Center for Ethics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030.

The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
|April 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Conflicts of interest and medical professionalism: on the need for increased collaboration between clinicians and administrators.

Journal of the South Carolina Medical Association (1975)·2002
Same author

The value of comparative analysis in framing the problems of organizational ethics.

HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues·2001
Same author

The two sides of inter-ethics.

HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues·2001
Same author

Struggling to understand the nature of organizational ethics.

HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues·2001
Same author

The aesthetics of clinical judgment: exploring the link between diagnostic elegance and effective resource utilization.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2000
Same author

The case for managed care: reappraising medical and socio-political ideals.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·1999

The Hyde Amendment and religious objections to Title X funding involve competing tolerance concepts. Reconstructing John Locke's view, this paper argues for a minimal state respecting religious freedom and negative rights.

Area of Science:

  • Political Philosophy
  • Ethics
  • Public Policy

Background:

  • Criticism of the Hyde Amendment and Roman Catholic restrictions on Title X funding often assumes a single definition of tolerance.
  • This overlooks competing philosophical conceptions of tolerance, particularly those concerning state power and the value of pluralism.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze two distinct notions of tolerance: one based on the limits of state force and accepting pluralism, and another on the limits of knowledge and promoting pluralism.
  • To evaluate these concepts using the philosophies of John Locke and J.S. Mill in the context of religious freedom and public funding debates.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical analysis of tolerance theories, drawing on historical texts (Locke, Mill).
  • Examination of the implications of different tolerance models for public policy, specifically Title X funding and reproductive rights.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachGenetics and ReproductionHyde AmendmentMedicaidReligious Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Argument for a reconstructed Lockean approach to tolerance in pluralistic societies.

    • Main Results:

    • Two competing concepts of tolerance exist, each with inherent limitations or 'intolerances'.
    • A reconstructed Lockean model of tolerance, emphasizing forbearance and negative rights, is preferable in religiously pluralistic contexts.
    • This model supports resistance to positive entitlements (e.g., funding for contraception, non-therapeutic abortions) when they conflict with deeply held moral or religious beliefs, due to taxation co-option.

    Conclusions:

    • The debate over funding restrictions reflects a conflict between different understandings of tolerance and rights.
    • A minimal state, respecting negative rights and the free exercise of religion, is philosophically justifiable.
    • There is a continuum from tolerance as forbearance to affirming communal integrity, mirroring the distinction between negative and positive rights.