Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:11:48.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conscientious Objection, Complicity in Wrongdoing, and a Not-So-Moderate Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2016

FRANCESCA MINERVA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article analyzes the problem of complicity in wrongdoing in the case of healthcare practitioners (and in particular Roman Catholic ones) who refuse to perform abortions, but who are nonetheless required to facilitate abortions by informing their patients about this option and by referring them to a willing colleague. Although this solution is widely supported in the literature and is also widely represented in much legislation, the argument here is that it fails to both (1) safeguard the well-being of the patients, and (2) protect the moral integrity of healthcare practitioners. Finally, the article proposes a new solution to this problem that is based on a desirable ratio of conscientious objectors to non-conscientious objectors in a hospital or in a given geographic area.

Keywords

conscientious objectionabortioncomplicitycooperation in wrongdoing
Type
Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 109 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Swartz, M. Conscience clauses or unconscionable clauses: Personal beliefs versus professional responsibilities. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, & Ethics 2006;6:269.Google Scholar

2. Strickland, S. Conscientious objection in medical students: A questionnaire Survey. Journal of Medical Ethics 2012;38:22–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Italian Ministry of Health. 2014. Relazione Del Ministro Della Salute Sulla Attuazione Della Legge Contenente Norme Per La Tutela Sociale Della Maternità E Per L’interruzione Volontaria Di Gravidanza (Legge 194/78) [Report of the Ministry of Health on the enforcement of the Law protecting Maternity and Termination of Pregnancy (Law 194/78)], at 33; available at http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_2226_ulterioriallegati_ulterioreallegato_0_alleg.pdf (last accessed 21 Sept 2015).

4. Wicclair, M. Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Card, RF. Conscientious objection and emergency contraception. The American Journal of Bioethics 2007;7(6):8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See note 4, Wicclair 2011.

7. Mirkes, R. Protecting the right of informed conscience in reproductive medicine. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2008;33(4):374–93, at 381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. McHugh, JT. Health care reform and abortion: A Catholic moral perspective. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1994;19(5):491–500, at 496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. NPT physicians are trained in NaProTechnology by the Pope Paul VI Institute and Creighton University School of Medicine.

10. Mirkes, R. Protecting the right of informed conscience in reproductive medicine. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2008;33(4):374–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Brauer’s comments can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27_2.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2015).

12. Bayles, MD. A problem of clean hands, refusal to provide professional services. Social Theory and Practice 1979;5(2):165–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. The Task Force to Improve the Care of Terminally-Ill Oregonians.2008. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A Guidebook for Healthcare Professionals, 2nd ed. Center for Ethics in Health Care, Oregon Health Sciences University; Portland 2008.

14. Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Evangelum Vitae, March 1995; available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html (last accessed 4 Apr 2016).

15. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Verse 1868; available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm (last accessed 20 Sept 2016).

16. Cantor, J, Baum, K. The limits of conscientious objection—may pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception? New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351:2008–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. Pellegrino, E. Societal duty and moral complicity: The physician’s dilemma of divided loyalty. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1993;16:371–91, at 377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. See note 17, Pellegrino 1993.

19. See note 14, Ioannes Paulus PP. II 1995.

20. DI PIETRO, M.L., Casini, C., Casini, M. and Spagnolo, A.G., Obiezione di coscienza in sanita: Nuove problematiche per l’etica e per il diritto [conscientious objection in healthcare: New ethical and legal issues]. Siena, Italy: Cantagalli Editions. 2005

21. Sulmasy, D. What is conscience and why is respect for it so important? Theoretical Medicine and Philosophy 2008;29:135–49, at 141.Google Scholar

22. European Court of Human Rights Press Releases; available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"display":["1"],"dmdocnumber":["885795"]} (last accessed 20 Sept 2015).

23. European Court of Human Rights Press Releases; available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=814537&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (last accessed 4 Apr 2016).

24. European Court of Human Rights Press Unit; available at http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/Texts_and_documents/ECHR_Procreation_e.pdf (last accessed 4 Apr 2016).

25. Minerva, F. Conscientious objection in Italy. Journal of Medical Ethics 2015;41:170–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. Savulescu, J. Conscientious objection in medicine British Medical Journal 2006;332:294–7, at 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar