@article {Schuklenkmedethics-2016-103560, author = {Udo Schuklenk and Ricardo Smalling}, title = {Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies}, elocation-id = {medethics-2016-103560}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.1136/medethics-2016-103560}, publisher = {Institute of Medical Ethics}, abstract = {We describe a number of conscientious objection cases in a liberal Western democracy. These cases strongly suggest that the typical conscientious objector does not object to unreasonable, controversial professional services{\textemdash}involving torture, for instance{\textemdash}but to the provision of professional services that are both uncontroversially legal and that patients are entitled to receive. We analyse the conflict between these patients{\textquoteright} access rights and the conscientious objection accommodation demanded by monopoly providers of such healthcare services. It is implausible that professionals who voluntarily join a profession should be endowed with a legal claim not to provide services that are within the scope of the profession{\textquoteright}s practice and that society expects them to provide. We discuss common counterarguments to this view and reject all of them.}, issn = {0306-6800}, URL = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2016/04/22/medethics-2016-103560}, eprint = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2016/04/22/medethics-2016-103560.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Medical Ethics} }