Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Assessing Public Reason Approaches to Conscientious Objection in Healthcare.Doug McConnell - forthcoming - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics:1-11.
    Sometimes healthcare professionals conscientiously refuse to treat patients despite the patient requesting legal, medically indicated treatments within the professionals’ remit. Recently, there has been a proliferation of views using the concept of public reason to specify which conscientious refusals of treatment should be accommodated. Four such views are critically assessed, namely, those of Robert Card, Massimo Reichlin, David Scott, and Doug McConnell. This paper argues that McConnell’s view has advantages over the other approaches because it combines the requirement that healthcare (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Conscience absolutism via legislative amendment.Peter G. N. West-Oram & Jordanna A. A. Nunes - 2022 - Clinical Ethics 17 (3):225-229.
    On 30 June 2021, Ohio state Governor, Mike DeWine, signed a Bill which would enact the state's budget for the next two years. In addition to its core funding imperatives, the Bill also contained an amendment significantly expanding entitlements of health care providers to conscientiously object to professional duties to provide controversial health care services. This amendment has been heavily criticised as providing the means to allow health care providers to discriminate against a wide range of persons by denying them (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Conscientious Objection in Health Care: Pinning down the Reasonability View.Doug McConnell - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (1):37-57.
    Robert Card’s “Reasonability View” is a significant contribution to the debate over the place of conscientious objection in health care. In his view, conscientious objections can only be accommodated if the grounds for the objection meet a reasonability standard. I identify inconsistencies in Card’s description of the reasonability standard and argue that each version he specifies is unsatisfactory. The criteria for reasonability that Card sets out most frequently have no clear underpinning principle and are too permissive of immoral objections. Card (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Development of the Inclination Toward Conscientious Objection Scale for Physicians.Şükrü Keleş, Osman Dağ, Murat Aksu, Gizem Gülpinar & Neyyire Yasemin Yalım - 2023 - Health Care Analysis 31 (2):81-98.
    This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to assess whether a physician is inclined to take conscientious objection when asked to perform medical services that clash with his/her personal beliefs. The scale, named the Inclination toward Conscientious Objection Scale, was developed for physicians in Turkey. Face validity, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity of the scale were evaluated in the development process. While measuring criterion-related validity, Student’s t-test was used to identify the groups that did and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Professional responsibility, nurses, and conscientious objection: A framework for ethical evaluation.Pamela J. Grace, Elizabeth Peter, Vicki D. Lachman, Norah L. Johnson, Deborah J. Kenny & Lucia D. Wocial - forthcoming - Nursing Ethics.
    Conscientious objections (CO) can be disruptive in a variety of ways and may disadvantage patients and colleagues who must step-in to assume care. Nevertheless, nurses have a right and responsibility to object to participation in interventions that would seriously harm their sense of integrity. This is an ethical problem of balancing risks and responsibilities related to patient care. Here we explore the problem and propose a nonlinear framework for exploring the authenticity of a claim of CO from the perspective of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Whose harm? Which metaphysic?Abram Brummett - 2019 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 40 (1):43-61.
    Douglas Diekema has argued that it is not the best interest standard, but the harm principle that serves as the moral basis for ethicists, clinicians, and the courts to trigger state intervention to limit parental authority in the clinic. Diekema claims the harm principle is especially effective in justifying state intervention in cases of religiously motivated medical neglect in pediatrics involving Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I argue that Diekema has not articulated a harm principle that is capable of justifying (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations