Abstract Abortion is the most politically contested social issue in the United States, a debate that manifests itself in extensive regulation of abortion as a health care service. This study provides a brief history of the judicial acceptance of abortion regulation and an overview of the most common forms of abortion regulation affecting physicians in the United States. The article concludes with a discussion of pending threats to the legal right to abortion in the United States and recommended resources where physicians can find assistance to comply with existing laws.
Abstract Pharmacy, like other health care professions, is both a knowledge-based and a value-based profession. However, the values that inform practice activities are rarely made explicit. We sought to identify the values drawn on by UK pharmacists through qualitative interviews on day-to-day practice activities focused around practitioners’ conceptions of ‘the good pharmacist’, good practice and their experiences of ethical issues and dilemmas. The study was based upon loosely structured, one-to-one interviews of 38 selected practitioners reflecting a range of practice roles and settings. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed following the principles of grounded theory. The accounts of practice (of self and colleagues) in the data showed pharmacists to be very dedicated and conscientious. Practice was predominantly discussed and presented by practitioners drawing upon a scientific mode of rationality. Value and ethical judgements were typically presented within this mode, with more open-ended and complex discussion of values and ethics appearing quite rarely. Two core values generally drawn on in reported practice emerged from the analysis – these were, ‘the patient’s best interests’ and a value we labelled ‘respect for medicines’. Common dilemmas arose from conflicting values, for example competing obligations to different parties, sometimes brought to a head by the conflicting demands of ‘rules’ of various sorts. Reported dilemmas related to rule breaking, resource allocation, patient communication and teamwork. There was a tendency for practitioners to ‘fall back’, often unreflectively, on their own personal value judgements when addressing these dilemmas. However, in the main, the values and dilemmas reported clearly show the socially embedded nature of professional ethics and, thereby, contribute to the social science re-theorisations of professional ethics needed if work on ethics development is to be realistic.
Abstract Recent legislation in Wisconsin mandating provision of emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault may create a conflict of conscience for some health care professionals. Although disputes exist over the exact mechanism of action of emergency contraception, those professionals who espouse a particularly strict stance may be reluctant to dispense the medication for fear that it could prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting in the uterus. While no objection of conscience clause was written into the new law, Wisconsin law has a long tradition of recognizing rights of conscience in matters of religious conflict. This legal tradition both at statutory and common law levels is summarized with application to the recent emergency contraception mandate. A case is made for a potential legal defense should a health care professional abstain from dispensing emergency contraception.
Bradley CT. Emergency Contraception and Physicians’ Rights of Conscience: A Review of Current Legal Standards in Wisconsin. Wis Med J. 2009 May; 108(3):156-160
Abstract The right to conscientious objection is founded on human rights to act according to individuals’ religious and other conscience. Domestic and international human rights laws recognize such entitlements. Healthcare providers cannot be discriminated against, for instance in employment, on the basis of their beliefs. They are required, however, to be equally respectful of rights to conscience of patients and potential patients. They cannot invoke their human rights to violate the human rights of others. There are legal limits to conscientious objection. Laws in some jurisdictions unethically abuse religious conscience by granting excessive rights to refuse care. In general, healthcare providers owe duties of care to patients that may conflict with their refusal of care on grounds of conscience. The reconciliation of patients’ rights to care and providers’ rights of conscientious objection is in the duty of objectors in good faith to refer their patients to reasonably accessible providers who are known not to object. Conscientious objection is unethical when healthcare practitioners treat patients only as means to their own spiritual ends. Practitioners who would place their own spiritual or other interests above their patients’ healthcare interests have a conflict of interest, which is unethical if not appropriately declared.
Extract Health care providers already enjoy broad rights — perhaps too broad — to follow their guiding moral or religious tenets when it comes to sterilization and abortion. An expansion of those rights is unwarranted. . . .Physicians should support an ethic that allows for all legal options, even those they would not choose. Federal laws may make room for the rights of conscience, but health care providers — and all those whose jobs affect patient care — should cast off the cloak of conscience when patients’ needs demand it.
Abstract Background: Patient autonomy has been promoted as the most important principle to guide difficult clinical decisions. To examine whether practising physicians indeed value patient autonomy above other considerations, physicians were asked to weight patient autonomy against three other criteria that often influence doctors’ decisions. Associations between physicians’ religious characteristics and their weighting of the criteria were also examined.
Methods: Mailed survey in 2007 of a stratified random sample of 1000 US primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association masterfile. Physicians were asked how much weight should be given to the following: (1) the patient’s expressed wishes and values, (2) the physician’s own judgment about what is in the patient’s best interest, (3) standards and recommendations from professional medical bodies and (4) moral guidelines from religious traditions.
Results: Response rate 51% (446/879). Half of physicians (55%) gave the patient’s expressed wishes and values “the highest possible weight”. In comparative analysis, 40% gave patient wishes more weight than the other three factors, and 13% ranked patient wishes behind some other factor. Religious doctors tended to give less weight to the patient’s expressed wishes. For example, 47% of doctors with high intrinsic religious motivation gave patient wishes the “highest possible weight”, versus 67% of those with low (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8).
Conclusions: Doctors believe patient wishes and values are important, but other considerations are often equally or more important. This suggests that patient autonomy does not guide physicians’ decisions as much as is often recommended in the ethics literature.
Rebecca J. Cook, Monica Arango Olaya, Bernard M. Dickens
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Abstract The Constitutional Court of Colombia has issued a decision of international significance clarifying legal duties of providers,hospitals, and healthcare systems when conscientious objection is made to conducting lawful abortion. The decision establishes objecting providers’duties to refer patients to non-objecting providers, and that hospitals,clinics, and other institutions have no rights of conscientious objection. Their professional and legal duties are to ensure that patients receive timely services. Hospitals and other administrators cannot object, because they do not participate in the procedures they are obliged to arrange. Objecting providers, and hospitals, must maintain knowledge of non-objecting providers to whom their patients must be referred. Accordingly, medical schools must adequately train, and licensing authorities approve, non-objecting providers. Where they are unavailable, midwives and perhaps nurse practitioners may be trained, equipped, and approved for appropriate service delivery. The Court’s decision has widespread implications for how healthcare systems must accommodate conscientious objection and patients’ legal rights.
Abstract The essay opens with some background information about the context of euthanasia in Belgium. It proceeds by discussing the Belgian law on euthanasia and concerns about the law, its interpretations and implementation. Finally, the major developments and controversies since the law came into effect are discussed. Suggestions as to how to improve the Belgian law and circumscribe the practice of euthanasia are made, urging Belgian legislators and the medical establishment to reflect and study so as to prevent potential abuse of vulnerable patients.
The article’s methodology is based on critical review of the literature supplemented by interviews I conducted in Belgium with leading scholars and practitioners in February 2003 and February 2005. The interviews were conducted in English, usually in the interviewees’ offices. The interviews were semi-structured. I began with a list of twenty-four questions but did not insist on answers to all of them if I saw that the interviewee preferred to speak about subjects that were not included in the original questionnaire. The length of interviews varied from one to two and a half hours. After completing the first draft I sent the manuscript to my interviewees as well as to some leading experts for critical review and comments. The comments received were integrated into this final version of the essay. In 2008, while writing the final draft, I approached my interviewees and some other well-known experts and invited their comments and updates. Responses received by mid-January 2009 were integrated into the article.
Antonio Bernabé-Ortiz, Peter J White, Cesar P Carcamo, James P Hughes, Marco A Gonzales, Patricia J Garcia, Geoff P Garnett, King K Holmes
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Abstract Background: Clandestine induced abortions are a public health problem in many developing countries where access to abortion services is legally restricted. We estimated the prevalence and incidence of, and risk factors for, clandestine induced abortions in a Latin American country. Methods: We conducted a large population-based survey of women aged 18–29 years in 20 cities in Peru. We asked questions about their history of spontaneous and induced abortions, using techniques to encourage disclosure.Interpretation: The incidence of clandestine, potentially unsafe induced abortion in Peru is as high as or higher than the rates in many countries where induced abortion is legal and safe. The provision of contraception and safer- sex education to those who require it needs to be greatly improved and could potentially reduce the rate of induced abortion.
Journal’s Extract Discussions of appeals to conscience by healthcare professionals typically focus on situations in which they object to providing a legal and professionally permitted service, such as abortion, sterilization, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception, and organ retrieval pursuant to donation after cardiac death. “Negative claims of conscience” will designate such appeals to conscience. When healthcare professionals advance a negative claim of conscience, they do so to secure an exemption from ethical, professional, institutional, and/or legal obligations or requirements to provide a healthcare service.
