Article info
Response
The need for feasible compromises on conscientious objection: response to Card
- Correspondence to Dr Aaron J Ancell, Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA ; aaron.ancell{at}gmail.com
Citation
The need for feasible compromises on conscientious objection: response to Card
Publication history
- Received February 19, 2019
- Accepted February 20, 2019
- First published March 14, 2019.
Online issue publication
August 27, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (14 March 2019).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
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.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Toward accommodating physicians’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- The Market View on conscientious objection: overvalued
- In defence of medical tribunals and the reasonability standard for conscientious objection in medicine
- Some difficulties involved in locating the truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Conscientious objection should not be equated with moral objection: a response to Ben-Moshe
- Conscientious objection in medical students: a questionnaire survey
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine: a reply to Clarke, Emmerich, Minerva and Saad
- Conscientious objection: unmasking the impartial spectator