Ethics Archives - Page 48 of 81 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

(Correspondence) Infertility Treatments for Gay Patients?

Anthony Charuvastra

Extract
We are entering an era where medicine is becoming more like engineering. The distinction between “treatment” and “enhancement” blurs as we are ever better at tinkering with the body. . .

Medical scientists will be able to modify and control an ever-expanding range of human bodily functions, from drugs that slow down aging to drugs that alter basic aspects of mood, anxiety, and cognition. Someday soon, the conflict between a physician’s idea of how people ought to live and how those people want to live will occur in fields far removed from reproductive technology. . .

Charuvastra A. (Correspondence) Infertility Treatments for Gay Patients?. Hastings Cent Rep. 2006 Sep;36(5):6-7.

“Who Should Survive?: One of the Choices on Our Conscience”: Mental Retardation and the History of Contemporary Bioethics

Armand H Matheny Antommaria

Abstract
The film “Who Should Survive?: One of the Choices on Our Conscience” contains a dramatization of the death of an infant with Down syndrome as the result of the parents’ decision not to have a congenital intestinal obstruction surgically corrected. The dramatization was based on two similar cases at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and was financed by the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., Foundation. When “Who Should Survive?” was exhibited in 1971, the public reaction was generally critical of the parents’ decision and the physicians’ inaction. Although technological developments in medicine were a necessary condition for the production of this film and its unanticipated reception, they were not a sufficient condition. The proximate cause was a changed understanding of the capabilities of individuals with Down syndrome. Part of the impetus for this change was data showing the adverse effects of institutionalization on normal children.

Antommaria AHM. “Who Should Survive?: One of the Choices on Our Conscience”: Mental Retardation and the History of Contemporary Bioethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2006;16(3):205-224.

(Correspondence) Infertility Treatments for Gay Patients?

Jeffrey Blustein

Extract
an egalitarian justice argument, he mentions only briefly as more promising than the former: refusing to provide reproductive assistance to homosexual parents while making it available to heterosexual parents constitutes unjust discrimination against the former. Appel does not develop this suggestion at all, but I want to say a word about an issue on which it hinges, namely, the moral standing that reproductive assistance has in a just health care system.

Blustein J. (Correspondence) Infertility Treatments for Gay Patients? Hastings Cent Rep. 2006;36(5):6.

“Conscience Clauses” or “Unconscionable Clauses”: Personal Beliefs Versus Professional Responsibilities

Martha S Swartz

Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics

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.

Swartz MS. “Conscience Clauses” or “Unconscionable Clauses”: Personal Beliefs Versus Professional Responsibilities. Yale J Health Pol Law Ethics. 2006;6(2):269-359.

Conscientious objection and emergency contraception

Robert F Card

Abstract
This article argues that practitioners have a professional ethical obligation to dispense emergency contraception, even given conscientious objection to this treatment. This recent controversy affects all medical professionals, including physicians as well as pharmacists. This article begins by analyzing the option of referring the patient to another willing provider. Objecting professionals may conscientiously refuse because they consider emergency contraception to be equivalent to abortion or because they believe contraception itself is immoral. This article critically evaluates these reasons and concludes that they do not successfully support conscientious objection in this context. Contrary to the views of other thinkers, it is not possible to easily strike a respectful balance between the interests of objecting providers and patients in this case. As medical professionals, providers have an ethical duty to inform women of this option and provide emergency contraception when this treatment is requested.

Card RF. Conscientious objection and emergency contraception. Am. J. Bioeth. 2007;7(6):8-14.

(Correspondence) Royal Pharmaceutical Society and conscientious objectors

Lynsey Balmer

Extract
If a pharmacist’s beliefs or personal convictions prevent him or her from providing a particular service, the pharmacist must disclose this fact before accepting employment to allow procedures to be put in place to enable patients to access the services they require. In such circumstances the Code of Ethics and Standards requires that a pharmacist must not condemn or criticise the patient and that either the pharmacist or a member of staff must advise the patient of an alternative source for the service requested.

Balmer L. (Correspondence) Royal Pharmaceutical Society and conscientious objectors. The Lancet. 2006;367(9527):1980.

What is the relevance of women’s sexual and reproductive rights to the practising obstetrician/gynaecologist?

Dorothy Shaw, Anibal Faúndes

Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract
Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are an integral part of daily practice for obstetricians/gynaecologists and the key to the survival and health of women around the world. Women’s sexual and reproductive health is often compromised because of infringements of their basic human rights, not the lack of medical knowledge. Understanding the relevance of respecting and promoting sexual and reproductive rights is critical for providing current standards of care, and includes access to information and care, confidentiality, informed consent and evidence-based practice. The violation of women’s rights in their daily lives through common problems such as gender-based violence and discrimination results in serious consequences for their health. Obstetricians/gynaecologists are natural advocates for women’s health, yet may be lacking in their understanding of relevant laws or the limits of conscientious objection. This chapter outlines the framework for sexual and reproductive rights, and explores its relevance to the practising clinician.

Shaw D, Faúndes A. What is the relevance of women’s sexual and reproductive rights to the practising obstetrician/gynaecologist? Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2006 Jun;20(3):299-309.

Institutional Conscience and Catholic Health Care

Grattan T Brown

Proceedings of the Sixteenth University Faculty for Life Conference — Proceedings of the University Faculty for Life

Abstract
Despite serious challenges to the identity of Catholic health institutions in the United States, both Church and society should continue to see them as privileged places of moral discernment. This discernment occurs in “institutional conscience,” namely, a dialogue among all those authorized to act on the institution’s behalf about institutional actions, for example, medical interventions. The institutional conscience of Catholic health institutions should be respected by society at large, leaving them free to practice Christian healing and to show the problems with certain practices that they reject, such as abortion, and to seek alternatives.

Brown GT. Institutional Conscience and Catholic Health Care. In: Koterski JW editors. Proceedings of the 16th University Faculty for Life Conference at Villanova University. 2006;413-422.

The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection

Rebecca J Cook, Bernard M Dickens

American Medical Association Journal of Ethics

Extract
Religious initiatives to propose, legislate, and enforce laws that protect denial of care or assistance to patients, (almost invariably women in need), and bar their right of access to lawful health services, are abuses of conscientious objection clauses that aggravate public divisiveness and bring unjustified criticism toward more mainstream religious beliefs. Physicians who abuse the right to conscientious objection and fail to refer patients to nonobjecting colleagues are not fulfilling their profession’s covenant with society.

Cook RJ, Dickens BM. The Growing Abuse of Conscientious Objection. Am Med Ass J Ethics. 2006 May;8(5):337-340.

When pharmacists refuse to dispense prescriptions

Katrina A Bramstedt

Journal Extract
The dilemma of conscientious objection by US pharmacists has yet to be resolved. The issue was thrust into the mass-media spotlight when a pharmacist in Texas rejected a rape victim’s prescription for emergency contraception (the morning-after pill). The pharmacist argued that dispensing the drug was a “violation of morals”.

Further cases have since been reported and include such acts as intimidation and confiscation of the prescription by the pharmacist. Pharmacists argue that they are a health-care provider and, like doctors, should have the right to refuse to participate in services they morally object to. Pharmacists argue that they are a health-care provider and, like doctors, should have the right to refuse to participate in services they morally object to. In fact, the policy of the American Pharmacists Association permits pharmacists to object to dispensing drugs but requires them to ensure another pharmacist is available to dispense or transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. Further, the Association argues that this approach is “seamless” and the patient is “not aware that the pharmacist is stepping away from the situation”.

Bramstedt KA. When pharmacists refuse to dispense prescriptions. The Lancet. 2006;367(1219-1220.