"When it comes to controversial topics such as abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and cloning, I will certainly give my opinions more freely in a social setting with a friend versus a workplace setting--and never around patients. If at work, I would try to keep my personal opinions to myself or, at the very least, remain diplomatic by expressing how each side has their right to an opinion, including me, which shall remain private."

"The medical workplace is not where these battles over philosophical differences should be waged. Battles create winners and losers, and there is no room for losers in medicine, for ultimately the patient is the one who suffers. My position is one as a person who is a non-participant ( a 'non-combatant') in these battles. The workplace need only follow the law while respecting the personal ethics of the workers."

"Such controversies will never be argued convincingly, because opposing sides use different definitions as a basis for their positions. For example, when life is considered to begin will determine a person's position on pregnancy termination; that is, life begins, respectively, at conception, at implantation, at autonomous hormonal support, at establishment of a heartbeat, or even at third trimester. As an arbitrator for these different definitions, I can only lose, which takes away from my effectiveness in my profession. Therefore, I would offer the traditional 'agree to disagree' with others, as long as they recognize the existence of multiple definitions that are incompatible."