1. Adolescent Sexuality and Public Policy: ALiberalResponse
2. “The Challenge of Multiculturalism in Political Ethics.”;Gutmann;Philosophy and Public Affairs,1993
3. These considerations undermine another objection to specialized consent statutes. It might be argued that these statutes should be amended simply because of what they require physicians to do: become parties to deception and undermine professional relationships with their patients' parents. This argument differs from the second neutrality argument in not concluding that such statutes should be repealed because they are illiberal. Instead, it seizes on the fact that they require physicians to engage in conduct that is ethically suspect and asserts that this is sufficient reason for their amendment. There are parts of Ross's article that suggest that this, rather than the charge of illiberality, is her real argument against specialized consent statutes (cf. 1996:19). But this line of thought fares no better than the second neutrality argument. If there are compelling reasons for confidentiality, then statutes that require physicians to honor it do not require them to act unethically. And if they do not require physicians to act unethically, then the charge that they do cannot ground an argument for amending them.
4. This was the case that exempted the Old Order Amish from compulsory education statutes.
5. As Ross recognizes (cf. 1996:18).