Extract . . .pharmacists and physicians who deny EC to women misuse their role as gatekeepers. This is because EC is safer than many over-the-counter (OTC) medications; therefore, its distribution does not require providers to exercise a particular skill or apply special knowledge. As a result,healthcare providers may appropriately act as advisors to women seeking EC, but may not use their role as gatekeepers as away of imposing their values on the women in their care. . . physicians and pharmacists who bar women from access to EC do so without professional cause. They misuse their role as gatekeeper, imposing personal values where professional ones should prevail.
Extract The difficulties lie in those cases in which there is disagreement about the ends of medicine and the obligations they impose on its practitioners. It may very well be the case that in focusing our attention on particular acts of conscientious objection, we will fail to attend to the underlying and more pressing need to engage once again in a conversation on the nature of medicine and its proper ends. . . . It is here, I would suggest, that one will find the root cause of much of our current, heated debate about conscience and, perhaps, some possible resolution.
(Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)
Howard Brody, Susan S Night
The American Journal of Bioethics
Extract We conclude that, although a “duty to refer” may not describe very well an actual, working policy that effectively balances the duties of personal and professional integrity for the objecting pharmacist, Card’s (2007) mandatory-service policy fails at a basic level to respect the dual dictates of personal and professional integrity. A policy that attempts to maximize the extent to which both duties can be fulfilled might be denounced by Card as a “moderate” policy in the sense that he finds objectionable. Nonetheless, it is ethically the soundest option.
Extract To impose the philosophy of caveat emptor is morally inadequate, given the differences in power and class between many physicians and their patients. Physicians must not be permitted to disavow responsibility on the grounds of conscientious objection; rather, such practitioners must choose careers in which their fundamental values do not interfere with the autonomy and well-being of patients. Like conscientious objectors to military service, medical conscientious objectors must bear the consequences of their beliefs.
Extract A health care system must establish clear criteria to allow the right balance between paternalism and the autonomy of patients in the case of medical issues that are controversial among health care professionals.
Extract Conscience is a tricky business. Some interpret its personal beacon as the guide to universal truth and undoubtedly many of the health care providers who refuse to treat or refer or inform their patients do so in the sincere belief that it is in the patients’ own interests, regardless of how those patients might view the matter themselves. But the assumption that one’s own conscience is the conscience of the world is fraught with dangers. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Extract Conclusion Medical ethics and the practice of medicine as an act of conscience have become integral to this scientifically unsettled debate. Before medication is prescribed or dispensed, a prudent practitioner weighs carefully the risks of the medication with the potential benefits. 70 Laws that require a medical professional to perform an act against his or her best judgment violate the code of ethics of that profession to do no harm in the professional’s highest and best medical judgment. It ought to be alarming that a patient’s expectations may become the standard for professional action. Ought medical professionals prescribe and dispense what the patient wants even if it harms him or her, just because the patient’s autonomy allows a patient to live a risky life? 71 Family planning deserves a principled approach carried out with integrity that protects the parties, and that approach should be reflected in legal policy and lawmaking.
Should doctors and pharmacists be able to refuse to give out emergency contraceptives based on conscientious objections? Sexual freedom that was protected by the Supreme Court’s emancipation of sexuality from reproduction has allowed emergency contraceptives to be used for any purpose an individual desires, rather than for the best and most responsible medical purposes. Therefore, when a medical professional has concerns that an emergency contraceptive may harm the health of his or her patients or customers or their offspring, a conscientious objection provided by law seems more appropriate than a legal requirement to dispense despite objections, at least until a medical and legal consensus can be reached.
Extract Conclusion Conscience clauses raise many difficult issues in a pluralistic society. Health care providers have special obligations to patients that are not replicated in many other professional endeavors. Duties prescribed by law and professional codes of conduct expect health care providers to act out of respect for the patient’s welfare and dignity. While no one suggests that health professionals should abandon their religious or moral principles, patients should not suffer harm or potential harm because of a belief they do not share. It is often appropriate to accommodate individuals who wish to exercise their principles in the care of patients, but conscience clauses that promote blanket immunity for refusals to provide health care services resolve the tension between patient needs and provider autonomy in a onesided manner.
When health care providers deviate from standards of care, engage in unprofessional conduct, or unduly burden their colleagues and employers through refusals to perform services, exemptions from malpractice, disciplinary, or employment actions are not appropriate. . .Accordingly, legislators should not tie the hands of disciplinary boards in addressing such conduct.
The clamor for absolute immunity from employment actions for health care workers asserting moral refusals to treat demonstrates a myopic view of the burdens imposed by such objections on patients, employers, and coworkers. . . . Although legislators may choose to heighten the de minimis accommodation standard under Title VII, abrogation of the undue hardship test is not warranted from either a policy or legal prospective.
. . . the overriding purpose of our health care system is to protect the health and safety of patients. The expansion of refusal legislation to create immunity for health care providers who refuse any service for almost any reason is cause for alarm. Conscience clauses fail to achieve a reasonable balance when they confer a special benefit on those whose religious, moral, or ethical beliefs compel them to deny health care while absolving them of the potentially harmful consequences of their choices. . .
Extract This symposium issue explores several continuing controversies at the intersection of Law, Ethics, Healthcare, Politics, Health Policy and Religion: abortion, contraception, the status of embryos, stem cell research, IVF, personal and professional autonomy, end- of-life decisions, and religiously based health care systems. The multiple values associated with each of these topics strain and threaten to usurp the effectiveness of our legal system to regulate them.
Abstract Conclusion Ultimately, this Article proposes a new model for such “conscientious objections,” one that presumes the general obligation ‘of health care professionals, who hold monopolistic state licenses, to participate in requested medical care that is not contraindicated or illegal, notwithstanding their personal moral objections. This model is based on “the· premise that it “is the patient’s best interest (as determined by -the patient, but mediated by the health care professional’s medical judgment), not the health care professional’s personal interests, that should govern the professional relationship. This should be the standard taught in professional schools and promoted by professional associations. “Conscientious objections” should be permissible based on prevailing medical ethics; however, to the extent that they are based on the personal morals of the· health care professional, they should be actively discouraged.
