Responses
Law, ethics and medicine
Extended essay
Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
Compose a Response to This Article
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 23 June 2016
- Published on: 23 June 2016Contempt for Conscience, Contempt for the ProfessionShow More
A major conceptual problem this paper suffers from is the suggestion that those whose views do not accord with the majority are, by default, not tolerable.
Such people, whom the authors assume are exclusively religious, are twice said to possess an idiosyncratic view of the universe. These remarks exclude the possibility that there might be good, even non-religious, reasons for conscientious objections. Moreover...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- Against the accommodation of subjective healthcare provider beliefs in medicine: counteracting supporters of conscientious objector accommodation arguments
- The Market View on conscientious objection: overvalued
- Selling conscience short: a response to Schuklenk and Smalling on conscientious objections by medical professionals
- The need for feasible compromises on conscientious objection: response to Card
- Toward accommodating physicians’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure
- The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- Response to: ‘Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies’ by Schuklenk and Smalling