Article Text
Abstract
In a recent article for this journal, Morten Magelssen argues that the right to conscientious objection in healthcare is grounded in the moral integrity of healthcare professionals, a good for both professionals and society. In this paper, I argue that there is no right to conscientious objection in healthcare, at least as Magelssen conceives of it. Magelssen’s conception of the right to conscientious objection is too expansive in nature. Although I will assume that there is a right to conscientious objection, it does not extend to objections that are purely religious in nature.i Thus, this right is considerably more restricted than Magelssen thinks. In making my case, I draw on John Rawls’s later work in arguing for the claim that conscientious objection based on purely religious considerations fails to benefit society in the appropriate way.
- conscientious objection
- magelssen
- rawls
- public reason
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
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