In a globalised world, healthcare professionals will inevitably find themselves caring for patients whose first language differs from their own. Drawing on experiences in Australia, this paper examines a specific problem that can arise in medical consultations using professional interpreters: whether the moral objections of interpreters should be accommodated as conscientious objections if and when their services are required in contexts where healthcare professionals have such entitlements, most notably in relation to consultations concerning termination of pregnancy and voluntary assisted dying. (...) We argue that existing statements of professional ethics suggest that interpreters should not be accorded such rights. The social organisation of healthcare and interpreting services in Australia may mean those who have serious objections to particular medical practices could provide their services in restricted healthcare contexts. Nevertheless, as a general rule, interpreters who have such objections should avoid working within healthcare. (shrink)

Although one can argue that they do not represent a radical departure from existing practices, protocols for reverse triage certainly step beyond what is ordinarily done in medicine and healthcare. Nevertheless, there seems to be some degree of moral concern regarding the ethical legitimacy of practicing reverse triage in the context of a pandemic. Such concern can be taken as a reflection of the moral antipathy some exhibit towards current practices of withdrawing treatment—that is, when withdrawal of treatment is arguably (...) in the best interests of patients—and a rejection of the purported normative insignificance of withholding and withdrawing. Given that the relevance of the psychological attitudes of some healthcare professionals to the moral assessment of withdrawing and withholding treatment continues to be debated, it would seem that some thought should be given to the introduction and implementation of reverse triage decisions in response to a pandemic. This brief paper will consider if provision should be made for healthcare professionals to conscientiously refuse to participate in reverse triage. (shrink)

Some contributions to the current literature on conscience objection in healthcare posit the notion that the requirement to refer patients to a non-objecting provider is a morally questionable undertaking in need of explanation. The issue is that providing a referral renders those who conscientiously object to being involved in a particular intervention complicit in its provision. This essay seeks to engage with such claims and argues that referrals can be construed in terms of what Harman calls morally permissible moral mistakes. (...) I go on to suggest that one might frame the (in)actions of those who exercise the right of non-participation generated by the claim to conscientiously object in similar terms; they can also be considered morally permissible moral mistakes. Finally, and given that the arguments already advanced involve simultaneously looking at the same issue from competing ethical perspectives, I offer some brief remarks that support viewing conscientious objection as an ethicopolitical device. (shrink)