Warning: Undefined array key "00" in C:\inetpub\vhosts\consciencelaws.org\library.consciencelaws.org\wp-includes\class-wp-locale.php on line 321
Warning: Undefined array key "00" in C:\inetpub\vhosts\consciencelaws.org\library.consciencelaws.org\wp-includes\class-wp-locale.php on line 321
Warning: Undefined array key "00" in C:\inetpub\vhosts\consciencelaws.org\library.consciencelaws.org\wp-includes\class-wp-locale.php on line 321 0 - Page 2 of 4 - Protection of Conscience Project Library Warning: Undefined array key "00" in C:\inetpub\vhosts\consciencelaws.org\library.consciencelaws.org\wp-includes\class-wp-locale.php on line 321
Warning: Undefined array key "00" in C:\inetpub\vhosts\consciencelaws.org\library.consciencelaws.org\wp-includes\class-wp-locale.php on line 321
Extract Why am I an atheist? Why do I think it is important to speak out against the harmful consequences of religious interpretations of the world and of our place in it? In this essay, I argue not only that we have no good reason to believe that a good, all-powerful, all-knowing God exists, but also that organizations and institutions campaigning in the name of God are frequently working toward preventing desirable societal progress in a number of crucial areas affecting our daily lives.
Extract Closing Arguments • Professionalism is in vogue today, as evidenced by the proliferation of discussion in the academic literature and in policy and guidance issued by various medical organizations.
• There is general agreement in the literature that, essentially, to be a medical professional is to profess competence in medicine and to use it primarily for the benefit of patients and communities.
• Although there has been no formal study of whether FPs agree on what professionalism is, there is reason to suppose that they agree on the general concept as it is generally elaborated in the literature and on the moral norms associated with the professional ideal.
• Family physicians might disagree about particular applications of the moral norms that make up the professional ideal, but such disagreement is perfectly compatible with the idea of professional judgment and is indeed a part of it.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Abstract
In a military-sponsored research project begun during the Second World War, inmates of the Stateville Penitentiary in Illinois were infected with malaria and treated with experimental drugs that sometimes had vicious side effects. They were made into reservoirs for the disease and they provided a food supply for the mosquito cultures. They acted as secretaries and technicians, recording data on one another, administering malarious mosquito bites and experimental drugs to one another, and helping decide who was admitted to the project and who became eligible for early parole as a result of his participation. Thus, the prisoners were not simply research subjects; they were deeply constitutive of the research project. Because a prisoner’s time on the project was counted as part of his sentence, and because serving on the project could shorten one’s sentence, the project must be seen as simultaneously serving the functions of research and punishment. Michel Foucault wrote about such ‘mixed mechanisms’ in his Discipline and punish. His shining example of such a ‘transparent’ and subtle style of punishment was the panopticon, Jeremy Bentham’s architectural invention of prison cellblocks arrayed around a central guard tower. Stateville prison was designed on Bentham’s model; Foucault featured it in his own discussion. This paper, then, explores the power relations in this highly idiosyncratic experimental system, in which the various roles of model organism, reagent, and technician are all occupied by sentient beings who move among them fluidly. This, I argue, created an environment in the Stateville hospital wing more panoptic than that in the cellblocks. Research and punishment were completely interpenetrating, and mutually reinforcing.
Abstract Aims: To highlight the potential difficulties in the management of staff with a conscientious objection to abortion, in light of expanding role of nurses.
Background: Recent years have seen changes in the provision of abortion services. Medical procedures are now gaining popularity and some areas are seeing the integration of outpatient clinics into ward settings. This may involve nurses being required to provide care to women undergoing termination of pregnancy, which may not have previously been within their remit. This has implications for staff with a conscientious objection.
Methods: A review of the academic literature.
Results: The advent of medical abortion has led to changes in the way in which abortion services are provided which in turn has re-ignited the debate of the competing rights of nurses with a conscientious objection and those of the patient accessing abortion services.
Conclusions: This extended role of nurses creates challenges for staff working in clinical areas offering termination of pregnancy and these are further compounded when staff have expressed a conscientious objection to abortion.
Implications for Nursing Management: Managers face new challenges in achieving the fine balance between the rights of staff with a conscientious objection to abortion and women accessing abortion services.
Extract In protecting and privileging health care professionals who withhold information that their patients depend upon, the provisions reduce health care professionals to the status of self-serving traders in an unequal market who may take advantage of those obliged or unwise enough to trust them and rely on their integrity. The provisions underscore the challenge that conscientious objection poses to health care professionalism [8]. To allow physicians to deny or frustrate a patient’s rights of conscience by enforcing their own through nonreferral, as the new regulations do, is unethical. It is ethically justifiable to be intolerant of religious or other fundamentalist intolerance.
Abstract PURPOSE: To explore physicians’ beliefs about whether physicians sometimes have a professional obligation to provide medical services even if doing so goes against their conscience, and to examine associations between physicians’ opinions and their religious and ethical commitments.
METHOD: A survey was mailed in 2007 to a stratified random sample of 1,000 U.S. primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. . . .
RESULTS: The response rate was 51% (446/879 delivered questionnaires). Forty-two percent and 22% believed they are never and sometimes, respectively, obligated to do what they personally believe is wrong, and 36% agreed with both statements. Physicians who are more religious are more likely to believe that physicians are never obligated to do what they believe is wrong (58% and 31% of those with high and low intrinsic religiosity, respectively; multivariate odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2-7.2). Those with moral objections to any of three controversial practices were more likely to hold that physicians should never do what they believe is wrong.
CONCLUSION: A substantial minority of physicians do not believe there is ever a professional obligation to do something they personally believe is wrong.
Bert Broeckaert, Joris Gielen, Trudie Van Iersel, Stef Van Den Branden
Ethical Perspectives
Abstract Surveys carried out among palliative care physicians have shown that most participants do not support euthanasia and assisted suicide. Belgium, however, is one of the few countries in the world in which voluntary euthanasia is allowed by law. The potential influence of this legal dimension thus warranted a study of the attitudes of Belgian palliative care physicians toward euthanasia and assisted suicide. . . .The majority of the physicians favour legalisation on assisted suicide. There is no significant association between the euthanasia clusters and attitudes toward assisted suicide. We conclude that although most Flemish palliative care physicians agree that there may be circumstances in which a euthanasia request is justified, they also strongly believe in the effects of good palliative care and want the ‘palliative filter’ to be included in the law on euthanasia. Religion and worldview are an important factor determining attitudes towards euthanasia.
Abstract Since the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, the human rights movement has embraced the concept of reproductive rights. These are often pursued, however, by means to which objection is taken. Some conservative political and religious forces continue to resist implementation of several means of protecting and advancing reproductive rights. Individuals’ rights to grant and to deny consent to medical procedures affecting their reproductive health and confidentiality have been progressively advanced. However, access to contraceptive services, while not necessarily opposed, is unjustifiably obstructed in some settings. Rights to lawful abortion have been considerably liberalized by legislative and judicial decisions, although resistance remains. Courts are increasingly requiring that lawful services be accommodated under transparent conditions of access and of legal protection. The conflict between rights of resort to lawful reproductive health services and to conscientious objection to participation is resolved by legal duties to refer patients to non-objecting providers.
Abstract This paper argues that the provider conscience regulation recently put into place in the USA is misguided. The rule is too broad in the scope of protection it affords, and its conception of what constitutes assistance in the performance of an objectionable procedure reveals that it is unworkable in practice. Furthermore, the regulation wrongly treats refusal of other reproductive services as on a par with conscientious objection to participation in abortion. Finally, the rule allows providers to refuse even to discuss “objectionable” options with patients and serves to protect discriminatory refusals of medical care. For all of these reasons, this regulation is unwise.
Extract An appeal to the doctrine of double effect supposes that the end aimed at is morally good. I claim that women who use emergency contraception need only intend the contraceptive effect of the medication, and not any possible abortifacient effect it may have. If one denies that even the former is a permissible end, then the doctrine of double effect makes no difference.
