Project Papers Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Book Review) Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise

Sean Murphy

Holly Fernandez Lynch. Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise. Boston: The MIT Press, 2008. 368 pp. ISBN: 9780262123051

Extract
Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care was published in 2008 as the 24th volume in the Basic Bioethics series from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is an American book dealing with the American political and legal controversies over freedom of conscience in health care. However, the discussion of the American experience by Holly Fernandez Lynch is relevant elsewhere, since the United States has the most extensive and varied network of protection of conscience legislation in the world.

While acknowledging that freedom of conscience is of concern to all health care workers and institutions, Fernandez Lynch focuses exclusively on physicians. This carefully and deliberately restricted focus is one of the strengths of the book.

After a preface and introduction, discussion and argument occupy about 260 pages, supplemented by 53 pages of end notes, many of which offer expanded comment on the text. A good 12 page index has been included, as well as four pages of cited statutes and cases. The earliest source found in a list of 300 references is from 1951; the rest date from 1972 to 2007. . .

. . . . As the subtitle of the book indicates, she is seeking a compromise that will provide “maximal liberty for all parties.” She believes that freedom of conscience for physicians and the provision of legal medical services are both important social goals, and that they are not incompatible. Thus, she rejects “all-or-nothing” strategies that seek “total victory.” Ultimately, quoting the Protection of Conscience Project, she affirms that all legitimate concerns can be met by “dialogue, prudent planning, and the exercise of tolerance, imagination and political will.”

Murphy S. Book Review: Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise. Protection of Conscience Project; 2009 Dec 17.

The Silence of Good People and Non-cooperation with Evil: A Response to Prof. R. Alta Charo

Sean Murphy

Responding to: Charo RA. The Celestial Fire of Conscience – Refusing to Deliver Medical Care N Eng J Med 352:24, June 16, 2005

Extract
It is especially noteworthy that, in an essay about the exercise of freedom of conscience by health care workers, Professor R. Alta Charo has virtually nothing to say about freedom or conscience (The Celestial Fire of Conscience- Refusing to Deliver Medical Care. N Eng J Med 352:24, June 16, 2005). “Conscience clauses,” yes: conscientious objection, to be sure: and she mentions acts of conscience and the right of conscience. But nothing about freedom, and, on the subject of conscience itself, the most she can muster is, “Conscience is a tricky business.”

Murphy S. The Silence of Good People and Non-cooperation with Evil: A Response to Prof. R. Alta Charo [Internet]. Protection of Conscience Project; 2005 Aug 19.

Service or Servitude: Reflections on Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Workers

Sean Murphy

Abstract
The authors suggestion that patients should be able to access morally controversial services without compromising health care workers’ freedom of conscience is most welcome, as is their acknowledgment that “other options exist” when pharmacists decline to fill prescriptions.

However, the conflicting interests of patients and health care providers may be accommodated but cannot be balanced because they concern fundamentally different goods. Neither the concept of autonomy nor an appeal to the “needs” of the patient help to resolve conflicts in these situations, while fiduciary obligations cannot necessarily be invoked because they are not governed by fixed rules, and there can be no obligation to participate in wrongdoing.

The fact that post-coital interceptives can cause the death of an early embryo is at the heart of the controversy over the drugs. The authors’ advocacy of mandatory referral follows from their belief this is not wrong. Those with different beliefs do not share their conclusions. Conscientious objection does not prevent patients from obtaining post-coital interceptives from other sources. As the exercise of freedom of speech does not force others to agree with the speaker, the exercise of freedom of conscience does not force others to agree with an objector. Concerns about access to legal services or products can be addressed by dialogue, prudent planning, and the exercise of tolerance, imagination and political will. A proportionate investment in freedom of conscience for health care workers is surely not an unreasonable expectation.

Murphy S. Service or Servitude: Reflections on Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Workers (2004 Dec 20) Protection of Conscience Project (website).