Article info
PDFOriginal research
Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- Correspondence to Bruce Philip Blackshaw, Philosophy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; bblackshaw{at}gmail.com
Citation
Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
Publication history
- Received May 10, 2019
- Revised August 7, 2019
- Accepted August 15, 2019
- First published August 31, 2019.
Online issue publication
February 21, 2020
Article Versions
- Previous version (21 February 2020).
- 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)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: new directions
- Professional and conscience-based refusals: the case of the psychiatrist's harmful prescription
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson
- Response to: ‘Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies’ by Schuklenk and Smalling
- Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer
- Conscientious commitment, professional obligations and abortion provision after the reversal of Roe v Wade
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- Conscientious objection and medical tribunals