Frankness
People may disagree vehemently
with Health Secretary Juan Flavier and may even dislike him personally,
but they must credit him with one thing: he tells you where he stands.
Knowing that he would incur the ire of the Catholic hierarchy, he has declared
that he favors all methods of birth control except abortion; he has also
promoted the condom as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS.
Most recently, he endorsed
a bill that would legalize prostitution -- and explained his endorsement
by pointing out that legalizing prostitution will make it easier for the
Department of Health to monitor and control the spread of AIDS. He added,
however, that ``there are moral and ethical issues that we have to consider
and which I am not prepared to discuss.''
Compare Dr. Flavier's position
on this issue with that taken by a former president of the Philippine Medical
Association, who said that the bill ``should be modified so as not to arouse
the condemnation of the Opus Dei and the celibates.''
In expressing concern about
the possible response of ``the Opus Dei and the celibates,'' the man may
be reminding Congress to consider the political feasibility of the proposal.
On the other hand, the former president of the Philippine Medical Association
may simply be unwilling to offend people (especially influential people)
by voicing an unpopular opinion.
Such reticence, while praiseworthy
from a public-relations viewpoint, is inadvisable in discussions on public
issues where disagreement stems from a difference in value premises --
as is the case with the proposal to legalize prostitution.
If such a value-based policy
disagreement is to be resolved, that resolution entails a rather painful
process of value clarification. Participants in the policy debate must
state where they stand and why. Only when this happens can people decide
where they agree, where they can reach some agreement through compromise
and where they can only agree to disagree.
This process of value clarification
and possible conflict resolution is not about to start unless and until
people are willing to state their positions on the issue and why. The process
is frustrated from the start when people make vague, ambiguous statements
out of fear that they may be criticized by some influential group.
This fear is not without
basis. Unfortunately, too many of us have not learned how to disagree without
being disagreeable; too many of us automatically regard a contradiction
of our position as a personal affront that must be repaid in kind.
The unwillingness to offend
other people -- even those who deserve to be offended -- is a major reason
for the inability of many of us to achieve as much as we should.
Because we do not like to
grapple with our disagreements, we paper over our differences and delude
ourselves into believing that we have resolved our differences. We are
satisfied with laws, agreements or contracts whose provisions are so ambiguous
that they can be interpreted in many different ways.
Such dubious agreements
merely postpone the conflicts to a later date. When conflicts do break
out -- as they must -- they are exacerbated by mutual accusations of mendacity
and bad faith. No wonder so many of our laws, agreements or contracts do
not achieve what they were meant to attain.
In this context, the categorical
stances Dr. Flavier takes on controversial issues are a welcome change
from the wishy-washy ambiguities of so many of our leaders. No matter how
much we might disagree with Dr. Flavier, we hope that other people will
be as frank and forthright as he is.
We hope that Dr. Flavier's
frankness will evoke a similar frankness from his critics, instead of personal
attacks questioning his motives, intelligence or morality.