CW Von Bergen Archives - Protection of Conscience Project Library

CW Von BergeN, Martin S Bressler

Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business

Abstract
Increasingly, employees maintain they should be provided an unqualified legal right to refuse work activities that violate their ethical, moral, personal, or religious convictions or beliefs-in short, their conscience. This assertion has become one of the more controversial issues confronting employers. This paper presents a brief review of conscientious objection with special attention to objection in medical related areas, followed by new discussion of freedom of conscience in the workplace.

Bergen CV, Bressler MS. A matter of conscience: do conflicting beliefs and workplace demands constitute religious discrimination? J Behavioral Studies in Business. 2011;3:1-14. Available from:

C W Von Bergen

Abstract
Most definitions of conscience in the US legal context are broadly defined as including religious, moral, or ethical principles. The wave of state and federal laws and bills supporting conscience protection for medical personnel are increasingly covering all health care services, and this has created counterclaims challenging the idea that health-related professionals may deny legally and medically permitted therapeutic interventions, particularly if their objections are personal and religious. The question is whether Americans deem it proper to put a person in the position of leaving his or her job or violating his or her conscience. Although such laws make reference to “conscience,” most define that term in a virtually boundless fashion to include religion, moral, or ethical principles and convictions. Such a broad definition may bring the freedom of conscience debate clearly within the protection of Title VII and its prohibition of religious discrimination.

Von Bergen CW. Conscience in the Workplace. Employee Relat Law J. 2009;35(1):3-24.