Journal Articles Archives - Page 14 of 67 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

How to Allow Conscientious Objection in Medicine While Protecting Patient Rights

Aaron Ancell, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Abstract
Paradigmatic cases of conscientious objection in medicine are those in which a physician refuses to provide a medical service or good because doing so would conflict with that physician’s personal moral or religious beliefs. Should such refusals be allowed in medicine? We argue that (1) many conscientious objections to providing certain services must be allowed because they fall within the range of freedom that physicians have to determine which services to offer in their practices; (2) at least some conscientious objections to serving particular groups of patients should be allowed because they are not invidiously discriminatory; and (3) even in cases of invidiously discriminatory conscientious objections, legally prohibiting individual physicians from refusing to serve patients on the basis of such objections is not always the best solution.

Ancell A, Sinnott-Armstrong W. How to Allow Conscientious Objection in Medicine While Protecting Patient Rights. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2017 Jan;26(1):120-131.

The cost of conscience: Kant on Conscience and Conscientious Objection

Jeanette Kennett

Abstract
The spread of demands by physicians and allied health professionals for accommodation of their private ethical, usually religiously based, objections to providing care of a particular type, or to a particular class of persons, suggests the need for a re-evaluation of conscientious objection in healthcare and how it should be regulated. I argue on Kantian grounds that respect for conscience and protection of freedom of conscience is consistent with fairly stringent limitations and regulations governing refusal of service in healthcare settings. Respect for conscience does not entail that refusal of service should be cost free to the objector. I suggest that conscientious objection in medicine should be conceptualized and treated analogously to civil disobedience.

Kennett J. The cost of conscience: Kant on Conscience and Conscientious Objection. Cam Quart Healthcare Ethics 2017 Jan;26(1):69-81.

The Legal Ethical Backbone of Conscientious Refusal

Christian Munthe, Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen

Abstract
This article analyzes the idea of a legal right to conscientious refusal for healthcare professionals from a basic legal ethical standpoint, using refusal to perform tasks related to legal abortion (in cases of voluntary employment) as a case in point. The idea of a legal right to conscientious refusal is distinguished from ideas regarding moral rights or reasons related to conscientious refusal, and none of the latter are found to support the notion of a legal right. Reasons for allowing some sort of room for conscientious refusal for healthcare professionals based on the importance of cultural identity and the fostering of a critical atmosphere might provide some support, if no countervailing factors apply. One such factor is that a legal right to healthcare professionals’ conscientious refusal must comply with basic legal ethical tenets regarding the rule of law and equal treatment, and this requirement is found to create serious problems for those wishing to defend the idea under consideration. We conclude that the notion of a legal right to conscientious refusal for any profession is either fundamentally incompatible with elementary legal ethical requirements, or implausible because it undermines the functioning of a related professional sector (healthcare) or even of society as a whole.

Munthe C, Nielsen MEJ. The Legal Ethical Backbone of Conscientious Refusal. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2017 Jan; 26(1): 59-68. doi:10.1017/S0963180116000645

The Inevitability of Assessing Reasons in Debates about Conscientious Objection in Medicine

Robert F. Card

Abstract
This article first critically reviews the major philosophical positions in the literature on conscientious objection and finds that they possess significant flaws. A substantial number of these problems stem from the fact that these views fail to assess the reasons offered by medical professionals in support of their objections. This observation is used to motivate the reasonability view, one part of which states: A practitioner who lodges a conscientious refusal must publicly state his or her objection as well as the reasoned basis for the objection and have these subjected to critical evaluation before a conscientious exemption can be granted (the reason-giving requirement). It is then argued that when defenders of the other philosophical views attempt to avoid granting an accommodation to spurious objections based on discrimination, empirically mistaken beliefs, or other unjustified biases, they are implicitly committed to the reason-giving requirement. This article concludes that based on these considerations, a reason-giving position such as the reasonability view possesses a decisive advantage in this debate.

Card RF. The Inevitability of Assessing Reasons in Debates about Conscientious Objection in Medicine. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2017 Jan; 26(1): 82-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116000669.

Objection to conscience. An argument against conscience exemptions in healthcare

Alberto Giubilini

Abstract
I argue that appeals to conscience do not constitute reasons for granting healthcare professionals exemptions from providing services they consider immoral (e.g. abortion). My argument is based on a comparison between a type of objection that many people think should be granted, i.e. to abortion, and one that most people think should not be granted, i.e. to antibiotics. I argue that there is no principled reason in favour of conscientious objection qua conscientious that allows to treat these two cases differently. Therefore, I conclude that there is no principled reason for granting conscientious objection qua conscientious in healthcare. What matters for the purpose of justifying exemptions is not whether an objection is ‘conscientious’, but whether it is based on the principles and values informing the profession. I provide examples of acceptable forms of objection in healthcare.

Giubilini A. Objection to conscience. An argument against conscience exemptions in healthcare. Bioethics. 2016;31(5):400-408.

Conscience and Agent-Integrity: A Defence of Conscience-Based Exemptions in the Health Care Context

Mary Neal, Sara Fovargue

Abstract
The issue of conscientious refusal by health care practitioners continues to attract attention from academics, and was the subject of a recent UK Supreme Court decision. Activism aimed at changing abortion law and the decision to devolve governance of abortion law to the Scottish Parliament both raise the prospect of altered provision for conscience in domestic law. In this article, building on earlier work, we argue that conscience is fundamentally connected to moral integrity and essential to the proper functioning of moral agency. We examine recent attempts to undermine the view of conscience as a matter of integrity and argue that these have been unsuccessful. With our view of conscience as a prerequisite for moral integrity and agency established and defended, we then take issue with the ‘incompatibility thesis’ (the claim that protection for conscience is incompatible with the professional obligations of health care practitioners). We reject each of the alternative premises on which the incompatibility thesis might rest, and challenge the assumption of a public/private divide which is entailed by all versions of the thesis. Finally, we raise concerns about the apparent blindness of the thesis to issues of power and privilege, and conclude that conscience merits robust protection.

Neal M, Fovargue S. Conscience and Agent-Integrity: A Defence of Conscience-Based Exemptions in the Health Care Context. Med Law Rev. 2016 Nov 1;24(4):544-570. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fww023

Patient’s Autonomy, Physician’s Convictions and Euthanasia in Belgium

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to show the inherent contradiction in the Belgian euthanasia practice. While stressing patient’s autonomy, medical professionals exhibit paternalism in deciding the patient’s fate. First, background information is provided. Then the 2014 Belgian Society of Intensive Care Medicine Council Statement Paper will be considered. Concerns are voiced about euthanizing people who fail to find meaning in their lives, including those who underwent unsuccessful sex-change operation and blind people, euthanizing patients who did not give their consent, and euthanizing people with dementia. Finally, some suggestions designed to improve the situation are offered.

Cohen-Almagor R. Patient’s Autonomy, Physician’s Convictions and Euthanasia in Belgium. Annual Rev Law Ethics. 2016 Dec;24:343-356.

An Unholy Mess: Why ‘The Sanctity of Life Principle’ Should Be Jettisoned.

David Albert Jones

Abstract
The aim of this article is to present an account of an important element of medical ethics and law which is widely cited but is often confused. This element is most frequently referred to as ‘the principle of the sanctity of life’, and it is often assumed that this language has a religious provenance. However, the phrase is neither rooted in the traditions it purports to represent nor is it used consistently in contemporary discourse. Understood as the name of an established ‘principle’ the ‘sanctity of life’ is virtually an invention of the late twentieth century. The language came to prominence as the label of a position that was being rejected: it is the name of a caricature. Hence there is no locus classicus for a definition of the terms and different authors freely apply the phrase to divergent and contradictory positions. Appeal to this ‘principle’ thus serves only to perpetuate confusion. This language is best jettisoned in favour of clearer and more traditional ethical concepts.

Jones DA, An Unholy Mess: Why ‘The Sanctity of Life Principle’ Should Be Jettisoned. The New Biothics, Vol. 22, 2016, Issue 3.

Rationing conscience

Dominic Wilkinson

Abstract
Decisions about allocation of limited healthcare resources are frequently controversial. These decisions are usually based on careful analysis of medical, scientific and health economic evidence. Yet, decisions are also necessarily based on value judgements. There may be differing views among health professionals about how to allocate resources or how to evaluate existing evidence. In specific cases, professionals may have strong personal views (contrary to professional or societal norms) that treatment should or should not be provided. Could these disagreements rise to the level of a conscientious objection? If so, should conscientious objections to existing allocation decisions be accommodated? In the first part of this paper, I assess whether resource allocation could be a matter of conscience. I analyse conceptual and normative models of conscientious objection and argue that rationing could be a matter for conscience. I distinguish between negative and positive forms: conscientious non-treatment and conscientious treatment. In the second part of the paper, I identify distinctive challenges for conscientious objections to resource allocation. Such objections are almost always inappropriate.

Wilkinson D. Rationing conscience. J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103795

Further clarity on cooperation and morality

David S. Oderberg

Abstract
I explore the increasingly important issue of cooperation in immoral actions, particularly in connection with healthcare. Conscientious objection, especially as pertains to religious freedom in healthcare, has become a pressing issue in the light of the US Supreme Court judgement in Hobby Lobby. Section ‘Moral evaluation using the basic principles of cooperation’ outlines a theory of cooperation inspired by Catholic moral theologians such as those cited by the court. The theory has independent plausibility and is at least worthy of serious consideration—in part because it is an instance of double-effect reasoning, which is also independently plausible despite its association with moral theology. Section ‘Case study: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby’ examines Hobby Lobby in detail. Even if the judgement was correct in that case the reasoning was not, as it involved applying a ‘mere sincerity’ test to the cooperation question. The mere sincerity test leads to absurd consequences, whereas a reasonableness test applied using the theory of cooperation defended here would avoid absurdity. Section ‘A question of remoteness: “accommodations” and opt-outs’ explores the post-Hobby Lobby problem further, examining opt-outs and accommodations: the Little Sisters of the Poor case shows how opt-outs are misunderstood on a mere sincerity test, which the court rightly rejected. Section ‘Application to the medical field: Doogan and Wood’ discusses the UK case of Doogan and Wood, concerning participation in abortion. Again, a judicially recognised ethic of cooperation, if it were part of the fabric of legal reasoning in such cases, would have enabled the conscientious objectors in this and similar situations to have their freedom of conscience and religion respected in a way that it currently is not.

Oderberg DS, Further clarity on cooperation and morality. J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103476