Tag: Carson Strong

Response to Commentators on “Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception”: Sex, Drugs and the Rocky Role of Levonorgestrel

Robert F Card

The American Journal of Bioethics
The American Journal of Bioethics

Extract
I thank the thoughtful commentators on my essay. Their contributions have deepened my grasp of the relevant issues. Unfortunately I cannot discuss each selection in turn, but will instead focus on several commentaries that purport to offer the most serious objections to my argument. . . I was inspired to write this article in order to examine some possible moral justifications for conscientious objection with respect to EC, given that objecting providers seemed to be under no obligation to even state their reasons for refusal. To the extent that this paper spurs further elaboration and evaluation of these reasons, I will consider it a success. (Responds to Farr Curlin, Carson Strong).

Card RF. Response to Commentators on “Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception”: Sex, Drugs and the Rocky Role of Levonorgestrel. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(10):W4-W6.

Conscientious Objection the Morning After (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception)

Carson Strong

The American Journal of Bioethics
The American Journal of Bioethics

Extract
In summary, Card supports his view with weak arguments, makes an erroneous assumption about the state of scientific inquiry, and misrepresents the argument of his opponents. When these various errors are brought to light, it becomes clear that Card has not successfully defended his extreme view. . . . Everyone accepts that conscientious refusal conflicts with the patient’s interests. The question is whether this particular type of failure to meet the patient’s interests can ever be ethically justifiable. Simply pointing out that there is a conflict does not constitute an argument. If a limited right to conscientious refusal is consistent with being a professional, then professional organizations that acknowledge such a right are not acting contrary to the purposes and roles of such organizations. What is needed to support de Melo-Martin’s position is an argument that conscientious refusals never, or at least hardly ever, override a patient’s interests, and de Melo-Martin does not provide this.

Strong C. Conscientious Objection the Morning After (Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception). Am J Bioethcs. 2007;7(6):32-34.