Ethics Archives - Page 47 of 87 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Conscientious Objection and Testimonials in the Field of Bioethics Research

Patricio Lopez Barahona

Proceedings of the Pontifical Academy for Life

Extract
Man is a free being who establishes his behaviour and forges his will in a series of ethical and/or religious principles. Loyalty to these principles brings the right and the need of conscientious objection. Man, in his own legitimate exercise of freedom, can and must object to exercising any action that is against or transgresses those principles that his conscience dictate. . .

One should have to distinguish between civil disobedience and conscientious objection. The latter comes from a personal motivation. One person feels that he cannot fulfil a certain juridical regulation because it goes against his/her conscience and moral principles, which are based on faith and on ethical considerations. However, civil disobedience , which can also be founded on conscience motivations, is a type of attitude that pretends to put forward a change or a breach in the law. In case of civil disobedience the law is also considered immoral or unjust. Civil disobedience and conscientious objection can happen together because civil disobedience is considered massive conscientious objection, if not massive, at least very numerous.

Barahona PL. Conscientious Objection and Testimonials in the Field of Bioethics Research. In: Sgreccia E, Laffitte J editors. Proceedings of the 13th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. 2007;123-126.

Respect for Conscience in Common Law Countries

Carl Anderson

Extract
The trend toward freedom of religion and conscience has been building over the past centuries. Certainly, the last hundred years have brought a greater tolerance of religious ideas in England, with restrictions on Catholic finally lifted in the early 19 th century, and the United States has, since the late
18th century enshrined religious freedom as a preeminent right. There is thus reason to hope that we may be moving toward a situation in which the precedent will be established that provides a greater understanding and accommodation of the conscience of the individual healthcare provider. However, there is not unanimity of opinion and contradictory decisions about the freedom of conscience in this area continue. “This issue is the San Andreas Fault of our culture,” said Gene Rudd of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. “How we decide this is going to have a long-lasting impact on our society.”

Challenges to the conscience of a health care professional certainly continue in common law countries, and the current system of dealing with such issues in these countries is far from adequate, or uniform. The problems will only grow as new unethical procedures become seen as “the norm” by some and as a “right” by others. . . . Common law countries certainly have much to do to develop more fully the ideal of a conscience clause for those in the medical field. However, the fact that in most common law countries some accommodation at least seems to be made for the conscience of those in the health care field provides hope.

Anderson C. Respect for Conscience in Common Law Countries. In: Sgreccia E, Laffitte J editors. Proceedings of the 13th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. 2007;102-114.

Pharmacist refusals and third-party interests: a proposed judicial approach to pharmacist conscience clauses

Lora Cicconi

Abstract
The issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control or emergency contraception recently has become a major debate in the battle over reproductive rights. Several states have enacted legislation to protect refusing pharmacists, and many more are considering such laws. I explore these new laws against the backdrop of the existing legal landscape governing the actions of pharmacists, including tort law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and free exercise jurisprudence. I then consider how courts might interpret refusal clauses upon which pharmacists may rely. I argue that courts should read pharmacist refusal statutes narrowly by limiting the protected act of conscience to the actual refusal to dispense medication, and not extending protection to behavior that could violate the pharmacist’s duty of care to patients. Such an approach will not only minimize the impact of refusals on the interests of patients and employers, but will meld these new statutes with the existing legal framework addressing religious objectors, which has consistently shown concern for third-party rights.

Cicconi L. Pharmacist refusals and third-party interests: a proposed judicial approach to pharmacist conscience clauses. UCLA Law Rev. 2007 Feb;54(3):709-749.

(Correspondence) Access to abortion

Andrée Côté

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

Extract
I am deeply disturbed by the negative responses (posted as e-letters) to the guest editorial by Sanda Rogers and Jocelyn Downie. Most of the authors articulate an uncompromising ideological position in favour of the right to life of a fetus, while ignoring the basic human rights of women who, presumably, are their patients. . . . Why should an individual doctor’s personal beliefs trump the legal definition of “person” and of “human being,” violate the constitutionally entrenched rights of women to sexual and reproductive autonomy, and violate international human rights?

Côté A. (Correspondence) Access to abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 2007 Feb 13;176(4):493-494.

(Correspondence) Access to abortion

Janet Epp Buckingham

Extract
Given that abortion and its regulation and restriction continue to be hotly debated in Canada, it is not simply “like any other medical procedure.” It is also inaccurate to portray a physician who exercises a right of conscientious objection to participating in abortion as violating CMA policy. The 1988 CMA Policy on Induced Abortion specifically allows for such a right of conscientious objection.

Buckingham JE. (Correspondence) Access to abortion. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;176(4):492.

Religion, Conscience and Controversial Clinical Practices (Supplement)

Farr A Curlin, Ryan E Lawrence, Marshall H Chin, John D Lantos

New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM — New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract
This appendix has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work.

Curlin FA, Lawrence RE, Chin MH, Lantos JD. Religion, Conscience and Controversial Clinical Practices (Supplement). N. Engl. J. Med.. 2007;356(593-600.

Religion, Conscience, and Controversial Clinical Practices

Farr A Curlin, Ryan E Lawrence, Marshall H Chin, John D Lantos

Abstract
Background
There is a heated debate about whether health professionals may refuse to provide treatments to which they object on moral grounds. It is important to understand how physicians think about their ethical rights and obligations when such conflicts emerge in clinical practice.

Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a stratified, random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties by mail. The primary criterion variables were physicians’ judgments about their ethical rights and obligations when patients request a legal medical procedure to which the physician objects for religious or moral reasons. These procedures included administering terminal sedation in dying patients, providing abortion for failed contraception, and prescribing birth control to adolescents without parental approval.

Results
A total of 1144 of 1820 physicians (63%) responded to our survey. On the basis of our results, we estimate that most physicians believe that it is ethically permissible for doctors to explain their moral objections to patients (63%). Most also believe that physicians are obligated to present all options (86%) and to refer the patient to another clinician who does not object to the requested procedure (71%). Physicians who were male, those who were religious, and those who had personal objections to morally controversial clinical practices were less likely to report that doctors must disclose information about or refer patients for medical procedures to which the physician objected on moral grounds (multivariate odds ratios, 0.3 to 0.5).

Conclusions
Many physicians do not consider themselves obligated to disclose information about or refer patients for legal but morally controversial medical procedures. Patients who want information about and access to such procedures may need to inquire proactively to determine whether their physicians would accommodate such requests.

Curlin FA, Lawrence RE, Chin MH, Lantos JD. Religion, Conscience, and Controversial Clinical Practices. N. Engl. J. Med.. 2007;356(6):593-600.

Refusal to Dispense Emergency Contraception in Washington State: An Act of Conscience or Unlawful Sex Discrimination?

Dana E Blackman

Extract
This Article will demonstrate that a pharmacist’s refusal to fill a valid prescription for emergency contraception constitutes sex discrimination and violates the WLAD. Part I explains the nature and function of emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) as well as their role in basic health care for women and the importance of their accessibility. Part II addresses federal civil rights protections and the failure of these protections to provide relief for women facing refusals. Focusing on the WLAD, Part II also explains how state public accommodation statutes protect women from discrimination in places of public accommodation. It further sets forth the prima facie case of such a claim where a woman is refused access to emergency contraception. Part III presents arguments likely to be submitted by a pharmacist facing litigation under the WLAD. Finally, Part IV illustrates how Washington public policy supports women and the protection of reproductive freedom. The Article concludes with suggestions for judicial interpretation..

Blackman DE. Refusal to Dispense Emergency Contraception in Washington State: An Act of Conscience or Unlawful Sex Discrimination? Michigan Journal of Gender & Law. 2007;14(1):59-97.

Emergency Contraception for Women Who Have Been Raped: Must Catholics Test for Ovulation, or Is Testing for Pregnancy Morally Sufficient?

Daniel P Sulmasy

Abstract
On the grounds that rape is an act of violence, not a natural act of intercourse, Roman Catholic teaching traditionally has permitted women who have been raped to take steps to prevent pregnancy, while consistently prohibiting abortion even in the case of rape. Recent scientific evidence that emergency contraception (EC) works primarily by preventing ovulation, not by preventing implantation or by aborting implanted embryos, has led Church authorities to permit the use of EC drugs in the setting of rape. Doubts about whether an abortifacient effect of EC drugs has been completely disproven have led to controversy within the Church about whether it is sufficient to determine that a woman is not pregnant before using EC drugs or whether one must establish that she has not recently ovulated. This article presents clinical, epidemiological, and ethical arguments why testing for pregnancy should be morally sufficient for a faith community that is strongly opposed to abortion.

Sulmasy DP. Emergency Contraception for Women Who Have Been Raped: Must Catholics Test for Ovulation, or Is Testing for Pregnancy Morally Sufficient? Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2006;16(4):305-331.

Conscience Clauses and Oral Contraceptives: Conscientious Objection or Calculated Obstruction?

Mary K Collins

Abstract
The ideal conscience statutes will balance the interests on both sides. Conscientious objectors should be free to practice in accordance with their beliefs, but should have to give employers and patients reasonably advanced notice that they may not be reliable in certain situations.173 The individual objector should avoid knowingly entering into employment situations guaranteed to create conflict. While health care providers have a duty to ensure informed decision making, women seeking unbiased clinical care should not be subjected to lectures on personally held views of morality. Places of worship are a more appropriate arena for proselytizing. Institutional and individual objectors should develop appropriate accommodations through referral and notice to avoid inconvenience, delay, and possible injury to the patients who depend on them.

Collins MK. Conscience Clauses and Oral Contraceptives: Conscientious Objection or Calculated Obstruction?. Ann Health Law. 2006 Winter;15(37-60.