Artificial reproduction Archives - Page 2 of 4 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Conscientious Refusals and Reason-Giving

Jason Marsh

Abstract
Some philosophers have argued for what I call the reason-giving requirement for conscientious refusal in reproductive healthcare. According to this requirement, healthcare practitioners who conscientiously object to administering standard forms of treatment must have arguments to back up their conscience, arguments that are purely public in character. I argue that such a requirement, though attractive in some ways, faces an overlooked epistemic problem: it is either too easy or too difficult to satisfy in standard cases. I close by briefly considering whether a version of the reason-giving requirement can be salvaged despite this important difficulty.

Marsh J. Conscientious Refusals and Reason-Giving. Bioethics. 2014;28(6):313-319.

Beyond abortion: Why the Personhood Movement Implicates Reproductive Choice

Jonathon F Will

Abstract
This paper describes the background of the Personhood Movement and its attempt to achieve legal protection of the preborn from the earliest moments of biological development. Following the late 2011 failure of the personhood measure in Mississippi, the language used within the Movement was dramatically changed in an attempt to address some of the concerns raised regarding implications for reproductive choice. Putting abortion to one side, this paper identifies why the personhood framework that is contemplated by the proposed changes does not eliminate the potential for restrictions on contraception and in vitro fertilization (IVF) that put the lives of these newly recognized persons at risk; nor should it if proponents intend to remain consistent with their position. The paper goes on to suggest what those restrictions might look like based on recent efforts being proposed at the state level and frameworks that have already been adopted in other countries.

Will JF. Beyond abortion: Why the Personhood Movement Implicates Reproductive Choice. Am J Law Med. 2013;39(573-616.

May Doctors Refuse Infertility Treatments t o Gay Patients?

Jacob M Appel

Extract
The controversy in Benitez vs NCWC stands at the nexus of two competing approaches to the issue of “conscience”exemptions. On the one hand, most states have statutes that shield medical students and physicians from having to perform procedures, such as abortion and sterilization, to which they object on religious or moral grounds.

Appel JM. May Doctors Refuse Infertility Treatments t o Gay Patients? Hastings Cent Rep. 2006;July-August:20-21.

In Defense of Ectogenesis

Anna Smajdor

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Extract
In his article ‘‘Research Priorities and the Future of Pregnancy’’ in this issue of CQ, Timothy Murphy evaluates some of the arguments I advanced in an earlier publication, ‘‘The Moral Imperative for Ectogenesis.’’ In this reply to Murphy’s article, I acknowledge some of his points and seek to show why some of his objections are not as powerful as he thinks. I start here by summarizing the argument put forward in my original article.

Smajdor A. In Defense of Ectogenesis. Camb Q Healthc Ethics (2012) 21 , pp 90-103

Conscientious commitment to women’s health

Bernard M Dickens, Rebecca J Cook

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract
Conscientious commitment, the reverse of conscientious objection, inspires healthcare providers to overcome barriers to delivery of reproductive services to protect and advance women’s health. History shows social reformers experiencing religious condemnation and imprisonment for promoting means of birth control, until access became popularly accepted. Voluntary sterilization generally followed this pattern to acceptance, but overcoming resistance to voluntary abortion calls for courage and remains challenging. The challenge is aggravated by religious doctrines that view treatment of ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, and emergency contraception not by reference to women’s healthcare needs, but through the lens of abortion. However, modern legal systems increasingly reject this myopic approach. Providers’ conscientious commitment is to deliver treatments directed to women’s healthcare needs, giving priority to patient care over adherence to conservative religious doctrines or religious self-interest. The development of in vitro fertilization to address childlessness further illustrates the inspiration of conscientious commitment over conservative objections.

Dickens BM, Cook RJ. Conscientious commitment to women’s health. Int J Gyn Ob. 2011;113(2):163-166.

Making Rules and Unmaking Choice: Federal Conscience Clauses, the Provider Conscience Regulation, and the War on Reproductive Freedom

Rachel White-Domain

Extract
Conclusion
This Comment analyzes the PCR, which is currently under review by the Obama Administration. As currently written, the PCR promises to have devastating effects on the healthcare system. . .

Commenters have predicted that the PCR will be used to discriminate against patients based on their sexual orientation. 196 And because reproductive healthcare remains so controversial in this country, women will be disproportionately disadvantaged by the PCR, which now allows almost all employees-not only the doctor, but potentially the nurse, the pharmacist, the pharmacist’s assistant, the receptionist, the ambulance driver, and the janitor-to have a say in whether she can access her chosen healthcare without interference.

The PCR brought the ongoing debate over conscience clauses into the national spotlight. . . .this Comment argues that any analysis of conscience clauses must recognize that what is at stake is access to healthcare services, and that reduction of healthcare access can be accomplished not only explicitly, for example through the explicit redefining of the term “abortion,” but also through “strategic ambiguity.” . . .

White-Domain R. Making Rules and Unmaking Choice: Federal Conscience Clauses, the Provider Conscience Regulation, and the War on Reproductive Freedom. DePaul Law Rev. 2010 Summer;59(4):1249-1281.

Crisis of Conscience: Pharmacist Refusal to Provide Health Care Services on Moral Grounds

Eileen P Kelly, Aimee Dars Ellis, Susan PS Rosenthal

Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal

Abstract
Advances in technology have resulted in medical procedures and practices that were unthought-of in previous generations. Embryonic stem cell research, abortifacients, birth control, and artificial insemination are just a few examples of these technological advances. While many individuals readily embrace such medical advances, others find them morally objectionable. A contentious national debate is now occurring over whether employee pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill legal prescriptions for emergency contraception because of conscientious objections. In the United States, existing public policy is somewhat muddled in both protecting and encroaching on the employee pharmacist’s right of refusal. This article discusses the legal and ethical nature of that controversy, as well as the clash of interests, rights and responsibilities between employers, employee pharmacists and customers from a U.S. perspective.

Kelly EP, Ellis AD, Rosenthal SP. Crisis of Conscience: Pharmacist Refusal to Provide Health Care Services on Moral Grounds. Employee Responsibilities and Rights J. 2011 May 22;23(1):37-54.

Conscience, Contraception, and Catholic Health-Care Professionals

Janet E Smith

Abstract
The Church’s teachings are often very challenging. Those who are involved in the health-care professions and who conduct their practices in accord with Church teaching can expect misunderstanding and even rejection from their colleagues and patients. One of the most difficult teachings of the Church is its condemnation of contraception. In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae vitae, which hit the world like a bomb. In it he affirmed the Church’s long-standing teaching on human sexuality and condemned contraception in particular. Today scientific advances such as in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem-cell research, as well as the challenges in making moral decisions about end-of-life care, make it increasingly difficult for health-care professionals to practice in accord with their deeply held moral convictions. Developing a properly formed conscience, which is the voice of God, is essential in dealing with these contemporary issues and making right choices. This essay outlines the process for properly forming the conscience. It also explains why prescribing contraception is morally wrong.

Smith JE. Conscience, Contraception, and Catholic Health-Care Professionals. Linacre Quarterly. 2010 May;77(2):204-228. Edited transcript of a talk given at the first annual symposium for health-care professionals, “Conscience and Ethical Dilemmas in Catholic Healthcare,” hosted by the Archdiocese of Baltimore Respect Life Office and Baltimore Guild of the Catholic Medical Association, Baltimore, MD, May 9, 2009. The text is more conversational than a written paper and not as closely documented as a professional piece. Much of the material was accompanied by PowerPoint slides.

Physicians’ “right of conscience”- beyond politics

Asgad Gold

Extract
Introduction: Recently, the discussion regarding the physicians’ “Right of Conscience” (ROC) has been on the rise. This issue is often confined to the “reproductive health” arena (abortions, birth control, morning-after pills, fertility treatments, etc.) within the political context. The recent dispute of the Bush-Obama administrations regarding the legal protections of health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs is an example of the political aspects of this dispute.

Gold A. Physicians’ “right of conscience”- beyond politics. J Law Med Ethics. 2010 Spring;38(1):134-42. PubMed PMID: 20446991.

Medical Conscience and the Policing of Parenthood

Richard F Storrow

William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law

Abstract
As state and local anti-discrimination provisions become more and more comprehensive, physicians who refuse to treat patients for reasons of sexual orientation or marital status are beginning to face legal liability. Increasingly, physicians are invoking codes of medical ethics alongside more familiar constitutional law claims in support of their claim to insulation from legal liability. This Article explores what medical ethics has to say about physicians who, for sincerely held religious reasons, refuse to treat patients for reasons of sexual orientation or marital status. The issue is explored through the lens of a case recently decided by the California Supreme Court in which infertility physicians refused to help a lesbian couple have a child with the aid of artificial insemination. Through a close examination of the provisions of medical ethics codes and the arguments based on those codes raised in the California case, this Article concludes that medical societies should not support carving out an exception from anti-discrimination laws for physicians who, for reasons of religious conscience, want to express their class-based biases in the clinic.

Storrow RF. Medical Conscience and the Policing of Parenthood. William & Mary J Women Law. 2010;16(2):369-393.