Article Text
PDFResponse
Response to: ‘Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies’ by Schuklenk and Smalling
Abstract
The recent essay by Schuklenk and Smalling opposing respect for physicians’ conscientious objections to providing patients with medical services that are legally permitted in liberal democracies is based on several erroneous assumptions. Acting in this manner would have serious harmful effects on the ethos of medicine and of bioethics. A much more nuanced and balanced position is critical in order to respect physicians’ conscience with minimal damage to patients’ rights.
- Autonomy
- Conscientious Objection
- Applied and Professional Ethics
- Patient perspective
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- Against the accommodation of subjective healthcare provider beliefs in medicine: counteracting supporters of conscientious objector accommodation arguments
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Public reason and the limited right to conscientious objection: a response to Magelssen
- The debate about physician assistance in dying: 40 years of unrivalled progress in medical ethics?
- Toward accommodating physicians’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure
- Australian pharmacists’ perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Selling conscience short: a response to Schuklenk and Smalling on conscientious objections by medical professionals