Tag: Emanuela Ceva

Political Justification through Democratic Participation: The Case for Conscientious Objection

Emanuela Ceva

Social Theory and Practice
Social Theory and Practice

Abstract
On a proceduralist account of democracy, collective decisions derive their justification-at least in part-from the qualities of the process through which they have been made. To fulfill its justificatory function, this process should ensure that citizens have an equal right to political participation as a respectful response to their equal status as agents capable of self-legislation. How should democratic participation be understood if it is to offer such a procedural justification for democratic decisions? I suggest that, in order to overcome the structural procedural disadvantages affecting the actual, effective opportunities that citizens who hold nonmainstream views have to exercise their right to political participation, the enhancement of such opportunities requires securing space for contestation. Against this background, I vindicate the (currently underestimated) role of conscientious objection as a form of political participation.

Ceva E. Political Justification through Democratic Participation: The Case for Conscientious Objection. Social Theory and Practice. 2015 Jan;41(1):26-50

Whose Self-Determination? Barriers to Access to Emergency Hormonal Contraception in Italy

Emanuela Ceva, Sofia Moratti

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal

Abstract
In Italy, Emergency Hormonal Contraception (EHC) is a prescription drug, available only in pharmacies. Evidence suggests that a number of doctors and pharmacists refuse to provide EHC, on grounds of conscience, although the exact frequency of this phenomenon is unknown. This creates a barrier to access to EHC for women, thus risking undermining their right to reproductive self-determination. In this article, we aim to offer a clearer empirical and theoretical understanding of the situation and to assess the force of doctors’ and pharmacists’ claims against providing EHC. Unlike standard discussions of the issue, we argue that the category of conscientious objection is not the most appropriate one for making sense of these claims, because they are not grounded in a conflict between two contrasting moral duties. The seemingly forced choice between protecting doctors’ and pharmacists’ professional self-determination and women’s reproductive self-determination could be prevented by distributing EHC without medical prescription and in a number of outlets (including supermarkets), thus relieving doctors and pharmacists from the legal duty to provide it.

Ceva E, Morati S. Whose Self-Determination? Barriers to Access to Emergency Hormonal Contraception in Italy. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2013 Jun;23(2):139-167. Available from: