Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Conscientious objectors to the killing of others—whether through war, abortion, infanticide or euthanasia usually pay quite a high price for taking such a stand, if only in having to bear the opprobrium of opposing voices; some, however, lose their jobs altogether or at least the likelihood of promotion even if they remain in post.1 Leading medical journals,2 ,3 including this one,4 have at least up to now appeared increasingly intolerant in recent years of conscientious objection in medicine.
The recently published consensus statement of an ethics summit on the topic begins, ‘Healthcare practitioners’ primary obligations are towards their patients, not towards their own personal conscience.’5 This arguably creates a false antithesis from the start. Conscientious objection to killing is primarily about obligations to patients in the minds of most such objectors. The consensus statement goes …
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: new directions
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- Conscientious objection: unmasking the impartial spectator
- Toward accommodating physicians’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure