Ethics Archives - Page 37 of 81 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Legal Protection and Limits of Conscientious Objection: When Conscientious Objection is Unethical

Bernard M Dickens

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.

Dickens BM. Legal Protection and Limits of Conscientious Objection: When Conscientious Objection is Unethical. Med Law. 2009;28(2)337-347.

Conscientious Objection: Resisting Ethical Aggression in Medicine

Sean Murphy

Responding to Cantor, Julie D., Conscientious Objection Gone Awry – Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine. N Eng J Med 360;15, 9 April, 2009

Extract
Judging from the title of her article, Professor Julie D. Cantor believes that “selfless professionalism” in medicine is being destroyed by health care workers who will not do what they believe to be wrong.

She also implies that Americans have access to health care only because health care workers are compelled to provide services that they find morally repugnant. At least, that is the inference to be drawn from her warning that health care “could grind to a halt” if a federal protection of conscience regulation were “[t]aken to its logical extreme.”

Such anxiety is inconsistent with the fact that religious believers and organizations have been providing health care in the United States for generations. If anything, this demonstrates that health care is provided to many Americans – and many of the poorest Americans – because of the commitment of health care workers to their moral convictions, not in spite of them.

Murphy S. Conscientious Objection: Resisting Ethical Aggression in Medicine [Internet]. Protection of Conscience Project (2009 Apr 17).

Conscientious Objection Gone Awry-Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine

Julie D Cantor

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

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.

Cantor JD. Conscientious Objection Gone Awry-Restoring Selfless Professionalism in Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 09;360(15):1484-1485.

Autonomy, religion and clinical decisions: findings from a national physician survey

RE Lawrence, Farr A Curlin

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.

Lawrence RE, Curlin FA. Autonomy, religion and clinical decisions: findings from a national physician survey. J Med Ethics. 2009;35, 214-218.

Euthanasia policy and practice in Belgium: Critical observations and suggestions for improvement

Raphael Cohen-Almagor

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.

Cohen-Almagor R. Euthanasia policy and practice in Belgium: Critical observations and suggestions for improvement. Issues Law Med. 2009 Spring;24(3):187-218.

Negative and positive claims of conscience

MR Wicclair

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

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.

Wicclair MR. Negative and positive claims of conscience. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2009;18(1):14-22.

In Tepid Defense of Population Health: Physicians and Antibiotic Resistance

Richard S Saver

Abstract
Antibiotic resistance menaces the population as a dire public health threat and costly social problem. Recent proposals to combat antibiotic resistance focus to a large degree on supply side approaches. Suggestions include tinkering with patent rights so that pharmaceutical companies have greater incentives to discover novel antibiotics as well as to resist overselling their newer drugs already on market. This Article argues that a primarily supply side emphasis unfortunately detracts attention from physicians’ important demand side influences. Physicians have a vital and unavoidably necessary role to play in ensuring socially optimal access to antibiotics. Dismayingly, physicians’ management of the antibiotic supply has been poor and their defense of population health tepid at best. Acting as a prudent steward of the antibiotic supply often seems to be at odds with a physician’s commonly understood fiduciary duties, ethical obligations, and professional norms, all of which traditionally emphasize the individual health paradigm as opposed to population health responsibilities. Meanwhile, physicians face limited incentives for antibiotic conservation from other sources, such as malpractice liability, regulatory standards, and reimbursement systems. While multifaceted efforts are needed to combat antibiotic resistance effectively, physician gatekeeping behavior should become a priority area of focus. This Article considers how health law and policy tools could favorably change the incentives physicians face for antibiotic conservation. A clear lesson from the managed care reform battles of the recent past is that interventions, to have the best chance of success, need to respect physician interest in clinical autonomy and individualized medicine even if, somewhat paradoxically, vigorously promoting population health perspectives. Also, physicians’ legal and ethical obligations need to be reconceptualized in the antibiotic context in order to better support gatekeeping in defense of population health. The principal recommendation is for increased use of financial incentives to reward physicians for compliance with recommended guidelines on antibiotic prescribing. Although not a panacea, greater experimentation with financial incentives can provide a much needed jump-start to physician interest in antibiotic conservation and likely best address physicians’ legitimate clinical autonomy concerns.

Saver RS. In Tepid Defense of Population Health: Physicians and Antibiotic Resistance. Am J Law Med. 2008 Dec;34(4):431-491.

Abortion and the politicisation of conscience

Megan-Jane Johnstone

Extract
In formulating a response to the abortion issue, the nursing profession needs to be careful not to lose sight of its moral obligation to ensure that women receive the care they require. Nurses also need to be wary of the politicisation of conscience and the corrupting influence this can have on authentic debate about complex moral issues.

Johnstone M-J. Abortion and the politicisation of conscience. Aust Nurs J. 2008 Dec;16(6):21.

(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.

(News) Morals, medicine and geography

Roger Collier

Canadian Medical Association Journal, CMAJ — Canadian Medical Association Journal

(Article compares approach to freedom of conscience in health care in the US and Canada)
Extract
Advocates of compulsory referral claim that doctors who discriminate against certain practices are, whether they know it or not, also discriminating against certain people — namely, the poor, the uneducated and those in remote areas. These people already have limited access to medical services, a problem that, all sides agree, is exacerbated when their doctors refuse to present them with all their options.

Collier R. Morals, medicine and geography. Can Med Assoc J. 2008 Nov 04;179(10):996-997.