Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 23 September 2017
- Published on: 23 September 2017Consciencentious objecton as a general right.
There is a simpler way to conceive of this issue. Simply, modern bioethics emphasizes the right of choice by self-conscious, autonomous individuals. They have the right to request procedures, including physician-assisted termination, or to refuse procedures that even if beneficial seem to them unpalatable. Physicians have an obligation as physicians to the patients care. But they also have an equal right as citizens to refuse to take actions that seem to them unethical or immoral. To deny them this right but insist upon it as a right for all others is to create a unique category of persons with responsibility for care but without the right to exercise ethical judgments about the care they provide. This "professionalism" denies them the equal opportunity to exercise the right of all others as ethical persons in a situation where they have a legal and ethical professional responsibility to provide the best and most ethical care possible. Simply, creating a class of persons with responsibility but without ethical standing is unconscionable.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- When should conscientious objection be accepted?
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: new directions
- Professional and conscience-based refusals: the case of the psychiatrist's harmful prescription
- Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: why tribunals might be the answer
- Conscientious objection and the referral requirement as morally permissible moral mistakes