Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

What is conscience and why is respect for it so important?

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on conscience in medicine has paid little attention to what is meant by the word ‘conscience.’ This article distinguishes between retrospective and prospective conscience, distinguishes synderesis from conscience, and argues against intuitionist views of conscience. Conscience is defined as having two interrelated parts: (1) a commitment to morality itself; to acting and choosing morally according to the best of one’s ability, and (2) the activity of judging that an act one has done or about which one is deliberating would violate that commitment. Tolerance is defined as mutual respect for conscience. A set of boundary conditions for justifiable respect for conscientious objection in medicine is proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In a brief essay it is impossible to say much more. Specifying exactly when a practice for which proponents seek tolerance is itself intolerant is a complicated matter. But in a rough and ready way, the plain person can grasp the self-contradiction of certain demands for tolerance. For example, it seems obvious that it is contradictory for the Taliban to demand tolerance for their religious belief that no other religion be tolerated.

References

  1. ACOG Committee. 2007. Opinion No. 385, November 2007: the limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstetrics and Gynecology 110: 1203–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D’Arcy, Eric. 1961. Conscience and its right to freedom. New York: Sheed and Ward.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Butler, Joseph. 1950. Five sermons preached at the Rolls Chapel and a dissertation upon the nature of virtue. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hunter, J.F.M. 1973. Conscience. In Conscience, ed. John Donnelly and Leonard Lyons, 55–84. New York: Alba House.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Potts, Timothy C. 1980. Conscience in medieval philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aquinas, Thomas. 1963. Summa theologiae, vol. I–II. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mill, John Stuart. 1975. On liberty. In John Stuart Mill: Three essays, ed. Jack Stillinger, 5–141. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fuss, Peter. 1973. Conscience. In Conscience, ed. John Donnelly and Leonard Lyons, 35–50. New York: Alba House.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shakespeare, William. 1994. Hamlet. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aristotle. 1985. Nichomachean ethics. (trans: Terence Irwin). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

  11. Callahan, Sidney. 1991. In good conscience: Reason and emotion in moral discourse. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Arendt, Hanna. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kilcullen, John. 1988. Bayle on the rights of conscience. In Sincerity and truth: Essays on Arnauld, Bayle and toleration, 54–105. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  14. Kolnai, Aurel. 1978. Erroneous conscience. In Ethics, value, and reality: Selected papers of Aurel Kolnai, ed. Bernard Williams and David Wiggins, 1–22. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donagan, Alan. 1977. The theory of morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chesterton, G.K. 1995. Orthodoxy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kamm, F.M. 1999. Collaboration and responsibility. Philosophy and Public Affairs 28: 169–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Keenan, James F., and Thomas R. Kopfensteiner. 1995. The principle of cooperation. Health Progress 76: 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grisez, Germain. 1997. Difficult moral questions. Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pontifical Academy for Life. 2006. Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted fetuses. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6: 541–550.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vinnedge, Debra L. 2005. Aborted fetal cell line vaccines and the Catholic family: A moral and historical perspective, revised version of October, 2005. http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm#Summary. Accessed 17 April 2008.

  22. Starr, Paul. 1982. The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pellegrino, Edmund D. 1982. The ethics of collective judgments in medicine and health care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  24. De George, Michael T. 1982. The moral responsibility of the hospital. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7: 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smith, Michael D. 1982. The virtuous organization. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7: 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  26. French, Peter A. 1982. Collective responsibility and the practice of medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7: 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nairn, Thomas A. 2001. Institutional conscience revisited. New Theology Review 14: 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Locke, John. 1983. A letter concerning toleration, ed. James H. Tully. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  29. Sulmasy, Daniel P. 1997. Institutional conscience and moral pluralism in health care. New Theology Review 10: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sulmasy, Daniel P. 2000. On warning families about genetic risk: The ghost of Tarasoff. American Journal of Medicine 109: 738–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel P. Sulmasy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sulmasy, D.P. What is conscience and why is respect for it so important?. Theor Med Bioeth 29, 135–149 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9072-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9072-2

Keywords

Navigation