The First Amendment clearly notes that one religion is not endorsed by the general public over another so as to allow for free exercise of religion. Some propose a limit on the free exercise of religion in the case of medical practitioners refusing reasonable requests (for instance, blood transfusions and cosmetic surgeries) on the basis of religious convictions. Can the government compel professionals to offer the requested services? A simple solution is for the government to not use such compulsion in a direct, coercive manner in the interest of free exercise of religion; rather, they may require the doctor or nurse to refer the patient to a willing professional in the interest of protecting the patient’s right to basic goods such as life and health. However, this would still violate the practitioners’ consciences because a referral is formal cooperation in a moral wrong; for example, pro-life medical professionals object to being coerced to refer someone for an abortion. Thus, the ethical distinction between preventing someone from doing something and compelling them to do something is made clear: while the state may not compel certain healthcare practices of its practitioners, the American government, in the interest of protecting the health of the general public, ought to staff public hospitals with practitioners that perform the health-restoring procedures that some people conscientiously object to. However, the state is not required to compel private practitioners, nor is the state obligated to provide services that improve already-healthy (that is, not sick) conditions.