Journals Archives - Page 18 of 108 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

From women’s ‘irresponsibility’ to foetal ‘patienthood’: Obstetricians-gynaecologists’ perspectives on abortion and its stigmatisation in Italy and Cataluña

Silvia De Zordo

Abstract
This article explores obstetricians-gynaecologists’ experiences and attitudes towards abortion, based on two mixed-methods studies respectively undertaken in Italy in 2011–2012, and in Spain (Cataluña) in 2013–2015. Short questionnaires and in-depth interviews were conducted with 54 obstetricians-gynaecologists at 4 hospitals providing abortion care in Rome and Milan, and with 23 obstetricians-gynaecologists at 2 hospitals and one clinic providing abortion care in Barcelona. A medical/moral classification of abortions, from those considered ‘more acceptable’, both medically and morally – for severe foetal malformations – to the ‘least acceptable’ ones – repeated ‘voluntary abortions’, emerged in the discourse of most obstetricians-gynaecologists working in public hospitals, regardless of their religiosity. I argue that this is the result of the increasing medicalisation of contraception as well as of reproduction, which has reinforced the stigmatisation of ‘voluntary abortion’ (in case of unintended pregnancy) in a context of declining fertility rates. This contributes to explain why obstetricians-gynaecologists working in Catalan hospitals, which provide terminations only for medical reasons, unlike Italian hospitals, do not experience abortion stigma and do not object to abortion care as much as their Italian colleagues do.

Zordo SD. From women’s ‘irresponsibility’ to foetal ‘patienthood’: Obstetricians-gynaecologists’ perspectives on abortion and its stigmatisation in Italy and Cataluña. Glob Public Health. 2018 May 27;13(6).

Cross Cultural Perspectives on Dignity, Bioethics, and Human Rights

Maria Isabel Cornejo-Plaza, Darryl RJ Macer

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics

Abstract
The concept of dignity is the foundation of fundamental rights expressed in international declarations on human rights and bioethics. Sometimes there are collisions of rights, which must be weighed. However, more often dignity is invoked in order to argue for or against the same issue. Is it possible that a concept can be so broad that it becomes meaningless? What do we mean when we argue for moral decisions based on dignity? This paper aims at understanding dignity as a construct, in an analytical and evolutionary cross-cultural approach, from a Western and Eastern view, and then considers its impact on the teaching of human rights and biolaw.

Cornejo-Plaza MI, Macer DR. Cross Cultural Perspectives on Dignity, Bioethics, and Human Rights. Eubios J Asian & Int Bioethics. 2016 May;26(3):90-95.

Physician opinions concerning legal abortion in Bogotá, Colombia

Kaitlyn Stanhope, Roger Rochat, Lauren Fink, Kalie Richardson, Chelsey Brack, Dawn Comeau

Abstract
Since the decriminalisation of abortion in 2006, women in Colombia have continued to seek clandestine abortions, endangering their health and contributing to maternal mortality and morbidity. The goal of this study was to explore physicians’ opinions towards and knowledge about legal abortion in Bogotá, Colombia, and key barriers to the legal abortion access. We conducted 13 key informant interviews followed by a survey with a probability sample of 49 doctors working in public hospitals in Bogotá. Interview and survey data showed lack of technical experience in the provision of abortion and nuanced opinions towards its practice. Key informants described ignorance and lack of abortion training in medical schools as key barriers to provision. In the survey, 16/49 respondents had performed an abortion, 24/49 had referred a woman for an abortion and only 33/49 showed correct knowledge of the law.

Stanhope K, Rochat R, Fink L, Richardson K, Brack C, Comeau D. Physician opinions concerning legal abortion in Bogotá, Colombia. Culture, Health and Sexuality. 2017;19(8):873-887.

Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies

Udo Schuklenk, Ricardo Smalling

Abstract
We describe a number of conscientious objection cases in a liberal Western democracy. These cases strongly suggest that the typical conscientious objector does not object to unreasonable, controversial professional services—involving torture, for instance—but to the provision of professional services that are both uncontroversially legal and that patients are entitled to receive. We analyse the conflict between these patients’ access rights and the conscientious objection accommodation demanded by monopoly providers of such healthcare services. It is implausible that professionals who voluntarily join a profession should be endowed with a legal claim not to provide services that are within the scope of the profession’s practice and that society expects them to provide. We discuss common counterarguments to this view and reject all of them.

Schuklenk U, Smalling R. Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies. J Med Ethics. 2016 Apr 22; 43(4) (online)(1-7.

Emerging assault on freedom of conscience

Stephen J. Genuis

Extract
Discussion on physician autonomy at the 2014 and 2015 Canadian Medical Association (CMA) annual meetings highlighted an emerging issue of enormous importance: the contentious matter of freedom of conscience (FOC) within clinical practice. In 2014, a motion was passed by delegates to CMA’s General Council,and affirmed by the Board of Directors, supporting the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience with regard to providing medical aid in dying. The overwhelming sentiment among those in attendance was that physicians should retain the right to choose when it comes to matters of conscience related to end-of-life intervention. Support for doctors refusing to engage in care that clashes with their beliefs was reaffirmed in 2015. However, a registrar from a provincial college of physicians and surgeons is reported to have a differing perspective, stating “Patient rights trump our rights. Patient needs trump our needs.

Genuis SJ. Emerging assault on freedom of conscience. Canadian Family Physician April 2016 vol. 62 no. 4 293-296.

Legal and ethical aspects of organ donation after euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands

Jan Bollen,Rankie Ten Hoopen, Dirk Ysebaert, Walther van Mook, Ernst van Heurn

Abstract
Organ donation after euthanasia has been performed more than 40 times in Belgium and the Netherlands together. Preliminary results of procedures that have been performed until now demonstrate that this leads to good medical results in the recipient of the organs. Several legal aspects could be changed to further facilitate the combination of organ donation and euthanasia. On the ethical side, several controversies remain, giving rise to an ongoing, but necessary and useful debate. Further experiences will clarify whether both procedures should be strictly separated and whether the dead donor rule should be strictly applied. Opinions still differ on whether the patient’s physician should address the possibility of organ donation after euthanasia, which laws should be adapted and which preparatory acts should be performed. These and other procedural issues potentially conflict with the patient’s request for organ donation or the circumstances in which euthanasia (without subsequent organ donation) traditionally occurs.

Bollen J, Ten Hoopen R, Ysebaert D, van Mook W, van Heurn E. Legal and ethical aspects of organ donation after euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands. J Med Ethics. 2016 Aug;42(8):486-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102898. Epub 2016 Mar 24.

The BMA’s guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law

John Olusegun Adenitire

Abstract
It is argued that the current policy of the British Medical Association (BMA) on conscientious objection is not aligned with recent human rights developments. These grant a right to conscientious objection to doctors in many more circumstances than the very few recognised by the BMA. However, this wide-ranging right may be overridden if the refusal to accommodate the conscientious objection is proportionate. It is shown that it is very likely that it is lawful to refuse to accommodate conscientious objections that would result in discrimination of protected groups. It is still uncertain, however, in what particular circumstances the objection may be lawfully refused, if it poses risks to the health and safety of patients. The BMA’s policy has not caught up with these human rights developments and ought to be changed.

Adenitire JO. The BMA’s guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law. J Med Ethics 2017;43:260-263.

The Challenges of Conscientious Objection in Health care

Hasan Shanawani

Abstract
Conscientious objection (CO) is the refusal to perform a legal role or responsibility because of personal beliefs. In health care, conscientious objection involves practitioners not providing certain treatments to their patients, based on reasons of morality or “conscience.” The development of conscientious objection among providers is complex and challenging. While there may exist good reasons to accommodate COs of clinical providers, the exercise of rights and beliefs of the provider has an impact on a patient’s health and/ or their access to care. For this reason, it is incumbent on the provider with a CO to minimize or eliminate the impact of their CO both on the delivery of care to the patients they serve and on the medical system in which they serve patients. The increasing exercise of CO, and its impact on large segments of the population, is made more complex by the provision of government-funded health care benefits by private entities. The result is a blurring of the lines between the public, civic space, where all people and corporate entities are expected to have similar rights and responsibilities, and the private space, where personal beliefs and restrictions are expected to be more tolerated. This paper considers the following questions: (1) What are the allowances or limits of the exercise a CO against the rights of a patient to receive care within accept practice? (2) In a society where there exist “private,” personal rights and responsibilities, as well as “civil” or public/shared rights and responsibilities, what defines the boundaries of the public, civil, and private space? (3) As providers and patients face the exercise of CO, what roles, responsibilities, and rights do organizations and institutions have in this interaction?

Shanawani H. The Challenges of Conscientious Objection in Health care. J Religion Health. 2016 Feb 29;55(2):384-393.

Conscientious objection in healthcare: why tribunals might be the answer

Steve Clarke

Abstract
An analogy is sometimes drawn between the proper treatment of conscientious objectors in healthcare and in military contexts. In this paper, I consider an aspect of this analogy that has not, to my knowledge, been considered in debates about conscientious objection in healthcare. In the USA and elsewhere, tribunals have been tasked with the responsibility of recommending particular forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors. Military conscripts who have a conscientious objection to active military service, and whose objections are deemed acceptable, are required either to serve the military in a non-combat role, or assigned some form of community service that does not contribute to the effectiveness of the military. I argue that consideration of the role that military tribunals have played in determining the appropriate form of alternative service for conscripts who are conscientious objectors can help us to understand how conscientious objectors in healthcare ought to be treated. Additionally, I show that it helps us to address the vexed issue of whether or not conscientious objectors who refuse to provide a service requested by a patient should be required to refer that patient to another healthcare professional.

Clarke S. Conscientious objection in healthcare: why tribunals might be the answer. J Med Ethics Feb 25. 2016;1-4.

In defence of medical tribunals and the reasonability standard for conscientious objection in medicine

Robert F Card

Extract
Cowley has recently objected to the idea of using a medical tribunal to make determinations regarding conscientious objections and has criticised using reasonability as a standard for any such tribunal. . . . I argue that Cowley’s discussion sells the idea of medical tribunals short and illustrates serious misunderstandings regarding how the reasonability standard should be deployed in practice.

Card RF. In defence of medical tribunals and the reasonability standard for conscientious objection in medicine. J Med Ethics 2016 Feb;42(2):73-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103037