Wischik presents an extensive reply to our paper on conscientious objection, which explores the implications of distinguishing ‘medical acts’ from ‘socioclinical acts’. He provides an extensive legal analysis of the issues surrounding conscientious objection, drawing on the concepts of professional practice and consequentialism. Invoking some of these concepts, we respond and demonstrate that Wischik does not seriously engage with our argument. Instead, he merely proffers his preference for legal positivism, which – when viewed as the fount of justice (as Wischik (...) seems to hold) instead of a tool in its service – necessarily bases rightness on might rather than truth. We also argue that in several important areas, Wischik is factually mistaken. (shrink)