Article info
PDFCurrent controversy
The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law
- Correspondence to John Olusegun Adenitire, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge CB3 0DG, UK; joa22{at}cam.ac.uk
Citation
The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law
Publication history
- Received November 4, 2015
- Revised February 5, 2016
- Accepted February 25, 2016
- First published March 18, 2016.
Online issue publication
June 16, 2023
Article Versions
- Previous version (16 June 2023).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Other content recommended for you
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: new directions
- Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion
- Ethics briefings
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors
- Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- Better to hesitate at the threshold of compulsion: PKU testing and the concept of family autonomy in Eire
- Ethics briefings
- Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on medical law