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.
Conscientious objection was barely mentioned in debates about the ethics of healthcare provision before the 1970s.1 The conscientious objections that attracted public and academic attention were those of conscripts who objected to participation in military forces, and of parents who objected to the vaccination of their children. All of this was changed by the 1973 US Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion in the USA. Shortly after this decision, the American Medical Association's (AMA) House of Delegates, the peak policy-making body within the AMA, adopted a resolution that sought to protect hospital employees from having to contribute to the provision of abortion if they felt that doing so was immoral. The resolution was adopted in response to a specific controversial court decision, but the language employed in it was broad in scope. House of Delegates Health Policy 5.995 contained a conscience clause stating that ‘Neither physician, hospital, …
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson
- Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law
- Conscientious objection and medical tribunals
- Conscientious objection and the referral requirement as morally permissible moral mistakes
- Public reason and the limited right to conscientious objection: a response to Magelssen
- Selling conscience short: a response to Schuklenk and Smalling on conscientious objections by medical professionals