Background and objectives Conscientious refusal of abortion has been discussed widely by medical ethicists but little information on practitioners' opinions exists. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued recommendations about conscientious refusal. We used a vignette experiment to examine obstetrician-gynecologists' (OB/GYN) support for the recommendations.
Design A national survey of OB/GYN physicians contained a vignette experiment in which an OB/GYN doctor refused a requested elective abortion. The vignette varied two issues recently addressed by the ACOG ethics committee—whether the doctor referred and whether the doctor disclosed their objection to the abortion.
Participants and setting 1800 OB/GYN randomly selected physicians were asked to complete a mail survey containing the vignette. The response rate was 66% (n=1154) after excluding 40 ineligible cases.
Measurement Physicians indicated their approval for the vignette doctor's decision.
Main results Overall, 43% of OB/GYN physicians responded that the conscientious refusal exercised by the vignette physician was appropriate. 70% rated the vignette doctor as acting appropriately when a referral was made. This dropped to 51% when the doctor disclosed objections to the patient, and to 12% when the doctor disclosed objections and refused to make a referral. Consistent with previous research, males were more likely to support disclosure and refusal to refer. Highly religious physicians supported non-referral but not disclosure.
Conclusion OB/GYN physicians are less likely to support conscientious refusal of abortion if physicians disclose their objections to patients. This is at odds with ACOG recommendations and with some models of the doctor–patient relationship.
- Right to refuse treatment
- moral and religious aspects
- demographic surveys/attitudes
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Funding This project was funded by grants from the Greenwald Foundation and the Templeton Foundation both awarded to FAC.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of The University of Chicago.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- US primary care physicians’ opinions about conscientious refusal: a national vignette experiment
- Is there no alternative? Conscientious objection by medical students
- Medical students’ attitudes towards conscientious objection: a survey
- Might a conscience clause be used for non-moral or prejudiced reasons?
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- Professional and conscience-based refusals: the case of the psychiatrist's harmful prescription
- Should professional interpreters be able to conscientiously object in healthcare settings?
- Conscientious refusals to refer: findings from a national physician survey
- Conscientious commitment, professional obligations and abortion provision after the reversal of Roe v Wade
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson