Article info
PDFResponse
Two conceptions of conscience and the problem of conscientious objection
- Correspondence to Xavier Symons, University of Notre Dame Australia, Institute for Ethics and Society, L1, 104 Broadway (PO Box 944), Broadway, Sydney NSW 2007, Australia; xavier.symons{at}nd.edu.au, symons.xavier{at}gmail.com
Citation
Two conceptions of conscience and the problem of conscientious objection
Publication history
- Received May 24, 2016
- Revised July 14, 2016
- Accepted August 15, 2016
- First published September 9, 2016.
Online issue publication
June 16, 2023
Article Versions
- Previous version (22 March 2017).
- 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
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Other content recommended for you
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy
- When should conscientious objection be accepted?
- Public reason and the limited right to conscientious objection: a response to Magelssen
- Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion
- A clear case for conscience in healthcare practice
- Voluntarily chosen roles and conscientious objection in health care
- Conscientious objection and the referral requirement as morally permissible moral mistakes
- Conscientious objection in healthcare: why tribunals might be the answer
- Non-accommodationism and conscientious objection in healthcare: a response to Robinson