This paper makes two main claims: first, that the need to protect health professionals' moral integrity is what grounds the right to conscientious objection in health care; and second, that for a given claim of conscientious objection to be acceptable to society, a certain set of criteria should be fulfilled. The importance of moral integrity for individuals and society, including its special role in health care, is advocated. Criteria for evaluating the acceptability of claims to conscientious objection are outlined. The (...) precise content of the criteria is dictated by the two main interests that are at stake in the dilemma of conscientious objection: the patient's interests and the health professional's moral integrity. Alternative criteria proposed by other authors are challenged. The bold claim is made that conscientious objection should be recognised by society as acceptable whenever the five main criteria of the proposed set are met. (shrink)

What role should the physician's conscience play in the practice of medicine? Much controversy has surrounded the question, yet little attention has been paid to the possibility that disputants are operating with contrasting definitions of the conscience. To illustrate this divergence, we contrast definitions stemming from Abrahamic religions and those stemming from secular moral tradition. Clear differences emerge regarding what the term conscience conveys, how the conscience should be informed, and what the consequences are for violating one's conscience. Importantly, these (...) basic disagreements underlie current controversies regarding the role of the clinician's conscience in the practice of medicine. Consequently participants in ongoing debates would do well to specify their definitions of the conscience and the reasons for and implications of those definitions. This specification would allow participants to advance a more philosophically and theologically robust conversation about the means and ends of medicine. (shrink)

Substituted judgement is often used in the absence of advanced directives to guide decision-making when patients lack decisional capacity. We present a remarkable case of family members exercising substituted misjudgement for a 42-year-old man hospitalized with multiorgan failure on life support. Feeling that their loved one would rather die than face severe disability, they elected to withdraw life support. Although this was done, the patient remained alive and recovered enough to clearly indicate his preference for life, even with severe disability. (...) This case suggests that in instances of unusual quality-of-life judgements where the patient's wishes cannot be known with reasonable certainty, families and physicians should be very wary using substituted judgement to refuse life support. Unless there are strong considerations based on the patient's prior statements, actions and values to decline life support, it would seem ethically appropriate to continue treatment, even with substantial disability the likely outcome. (shrink)

Background and objectives Conscientious refusal of abortion has been discussed widely by medical ethicists but little information on practitioners' opinions exists. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued recommendations about conscientious refusal. We used a vignette experiment to examine obstetrician-gynecologists' (OB/GYN) support for the recommendations. Design A national survey of OB/GYN physicians contained a vignette experiment in which an OB/GYN doctor refused a requested elective abortion. The vignette varied two issues recently addressed by the ACOG ethics committee—whether the (...) doctor referred and whether the doctor disclosed their objection to the abortion. Participants and setting 1800 OB/GYN randomly selected physicians were asked to complete a mail survey containing the vignette. The response rate was 66% (n=1154) after excluding 40 ineligible cases. Measurement Physicians indicated their approval for the vignette doctor's decision. Main results Overall, 43% of OB/GYN physicians responded that the conscientious refusal exercised by the vignette physician was appropriate. 70% rated the vignette doctor as acting appropriately when a referral was made. This dropped to 51% when the doctor disclosed objections to the patient, and to 12% when the doctor disclosed objections and refused to make a referral. Consistent with previous research, males were more likely to support disclosure and refusal to refer. Highly religious physicians supported non-referral but not disclosure. Conclusion OB/GYN physicians are less likely to support conscientious refusal of abortion if physicians disclose their objections to patients. This is at odds with ACOG recommendations and with some models of the doctor–patient relationship. (shrink)

Clear and careful thinking is an indispensable aid in the pursuit of answers to the difficult ethical question faced by clinicians, patients, and families. In this issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy devoted to issues in clinical ethics, the authors engage in this enterprise by reflecting on morally good medical decision making, conscientious objection, presumed consent in organ donation, the permissibility of surrogate decision making, and the failure of legislative limits on the scope of euthanasia in Belgium.

Omfanget av helsepersonells reservasjonsrett har nylig vært gjenstand for debatt i Norge. Vi spør om leger bør ha reservasjonsrett ved utførelse og henvisning til assistert befruktning, og drøfter argumenter for og imot ved hjelp av et rammeverk med sju kriterier for vurdering av reservasjon. Reservasjonsrettens grunnleggende dilemma er hvordan to viktige hensyn, henholdsvis pasientens rett til behandling og hensynet til helsepersonellets moralske integritet, best kan ivaretas. Det argumenteres for at leger bør ha rett til å reservere seg mot å utføre, (...) assistere ved og henvise til assistert befruktning generelt hvis begrunnelsen er hensynet til befruktede eggs moralske verdi. Videre finner vi at leger også kan ha en moralsk rett til reservasjon mot å utføre, assistere ved og henvise til assistert befruktning for likekjønnede, men da på nærmere spesifiserte vilkår.Nøkkelord: reservasjonsrett, assistert befruktning, samvittighet, moralsk integritetEnglish summary: Should physicians have the right to conscientiously object to assisted reproduction?The extent of the healthcare worker's right to conscientious objection has recently been debated in Norway. This article asks whether physicians should have a right to conscientious objection to the performance of, and referral for, assisted reproduction, and discusses arguments for and against the same, utilizing a framework of seven criteria for the evaluation of conscientious objection. The fundamental dilemma of conscientious objection is how two important considerations can be reconciled: the patient's right to treatment, and the protection of the healthcare worker's moral integrity. It is argued that physicians should have the right to object to performing, assisting with, and referring for assisted reproduction generally when the objection is grounded in the moral value of the embryo. Furthermore, physicians may also have a moral right to object to performing, assisting with, and referring for assisted reproduction for same-sex couples, but only on conditions that are further specified. (shrink)

Most discussions of medical futility try to answer the Futility Question: when is a medical procedure futile? No answer enjoys universal support. Some futility policies say that the health care provider will answer this question when the provider and patient cannot agree. This raises the Decision Question: who has the moral authority to decide what to do in cases where futility is disputed? I look for a procedural answer to this question, an answer that does not turn on whether a (...) given party happens to answer the Futility Question correctly. I argue that these policies get it right; the provider should decide because providers have a right of conscientious refusal that extends to refusing procedures on grounds of futility. This is a procedural answer because providers have this right even if they are sincerely mistaken about whether a procedure is futile. (shrink)

Given numerous ethical concerns with conscientious refusals by healthcare professionals, there is a need for detailed policies outlining the permissibility of conscientious refusals. I suggest that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) and American Medical Association (AMA) policies are inadequate and that these associations have good reason to endorse more restrictive, more detailed policies regarding conscientious refusals, much like those endorsed by nursing associations.Health-care professionals sometimes refuse to participate in the administration of legal interventions because the administration of these interventions conflicts (...) with their deeply held moral beliefs. These types of refusals are known as .. (shrink)

Auch unter Befürwortern der Zulässigkeit einer Suizidassistenz durch Ärzte unter bestimmten Bedingungen besteht weitgehendes Einverständnis darüber, dass kein Arzt zu einer Suizidassistenz rechtlich oder berufsrechtlich verpflichtet sein sollte. Auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seinem Urteil vom Februar 2020 Suizidwilligen unter bestimmten Bedingungen nicht mehr als ein ungerichtetes in rem-Recht auf Suizidhilfe zugesprochen, das keinen Anspruch gegen einen einzelnen Arzt begründet. Mit dem letzten Satz seines Urteils hat es vielmehr die Freiheit jedes einzelnen Arztes – wie auch jedes anderen potenziellen Helfers (...) –, Nein zu sagen, nachdrücklich bekräftigt. Auf dem Hintergrund einer empirischen Untersuchung der Gründe, die in der Schweiz für die Ablehnung entsprechender Patientenanfragen gegeben werden, untersucht und gewichtet der Beitrag die Gründe, die für diese Freiheit sprechen, unter ethischen Gesichtspunkten und verteidigt ein bedingtes Recht auf Ablehnung gegen dessen jüngste Kritiker. In Fällen, in denen die Bedingungen erfüllt sind, durch die das Bundesverwaltungsgericht in seinem Urteil vom März 2017 „extreme Notlagen“ definiert hat, sollte jedoch zumindest eine moralische Pflicht anerkannt werden, den Patienten an einen Arzt zu verweisen, der zu einer Unterstützung bereit ist. (shrink)