Article Text
Abstract
A recent focus of the debate on conscientious objection in healthcare is the question of whether practitioners should have to justify their refusal to perform certain functions. A recent article by Cowley addresses a practical aspect of this controversy, namely the question of whether doctors claiming conscientious objector status in relation to abortion should be required, like their counterparts claiming exemption from military conscription, to defend their claim before a tribunal. Cowley argues against the use of tribunals in the medical case, on the grounds that there are likely to be fewer unjustified claims to conscientious objection in this context than in the military, and that in any case tribunals will not be an effective way of distinguishing genuine and false cases. I reject these arguments and propose a different conception of the role of a medical conscientious objection tribunal.
- Conscientious Objection
- Abortion
- Ethics
- Ethics Committees/Consultation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- Conscientious objection and medical tribunals
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: new directions
- Professional and conscience-based refusals: the case of the psychiatrist's harmful prescription
- Conscientious objection and the referral requirement as morally permissible moral mistakes
- Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- When should conscientious objection be accepted?
- Conscientious objection and healthcare in the UK: why tribunals are not the answer