I explore the increasingly important issue of cooperation in immoral actions, particularly in connection with healthcare. Conscientious objection, especially as pertains to religious freedom in healthcare, has become a pressing issue in the light of the US Supreme Court judgement in Hobby Lobby. Section ‘Moral evaluation using the basic principles of cooperation’ outlines a theory of cooperation inspired by Catholic moral theologians such as those cited by the court. The theory has independent plausibility and is at least worthy of serious consideration—in part because it is an instance of double-effect reasoning, which is also independently plausible despite its association with moral theology. Section ‘Case study: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby’ examines Hobby Lobby in detail. Even if the judgement was correct in that case the reasoning was not, as it involved applying a ‘mere sincerity’ test to the cooperation question. The mere sincerity test leads to absurd consequences, whereas a reasonableness test applied using the theory of cooperation defended here would avoid absurdity. Section ‘A question of remoteness: “accommodations” and opt-outs’ explores the post-Hobby Lobby problem further, examining opt-outs and accommodations: the Little Sisters of the Poor case shows how opt-outs are misunderstood on a mere sincerity test, which the court rightly rejected. Section 'Application to the medical field: Doogan and Wood’ discusses the UK case of Doogan and Wood, concerning participation in abortion. Again, a judicially recognised ethic of cooperation, if it were part of the fabric of legal reasoning in such cases, would have enabled the conscientious objectors in this and similar situations to have their freedom of conscience and religion respected in a way that it currently is not.
- Conscientious Objection
- Religious Ethics
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.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
- Law, ethics and medicine
- Law, ethics and medicine
Other content recommended for you
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer
- Response to commentaries: ‘Further clarity on cooperation and morality’
- The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law
- Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion
- Selling conscience short: a response to Schuklenk and Smalling on conscientious objections by medical professionals
- The fox and the grapes: an Anglo-Irish perspective on conscientious objection to the supply of emergency hormonal contraception without prescription
- Women in pain: how narratives of pain and sacrifice complicate the debate over the Catholic provision of obstetrical care
- A reasonable objection? Commentary on ‘Further clarity on cooperation and morality’
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: new directions