Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion

Journal of Medical Ethics 3 (46):178-182 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Conscientious objection in healthcare has come under heavy criticism on two grounds recently, particularly regarding abortion provision. First, critics claim conscientious objection involves a refusal to provide a legal and beneficial procedure requested by a patient, denying them access to healthcare. Second, they argue the exercise of conscientious objection is based on unverifiable personal beliefs. These characteristics, it is claimed, disqualify conscientious objection in healthcare. Here, we defend conscientious objection in the context of abortion provision. We show that abortion has a dubitable claim to be medically beneficial, is rarely clinically indicated, and that conscientious objections should be accepted in these circumstances. We also show that reliance on personal beliefs is difficult to avoid if any form of objection is to be permitted, even if it is based on criteria such as the principles and values of the profession or the scope of professional practice.
Reprint years
2020
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BLAQBA
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-09-01
View other versions
Added to PP index
2019-09-01

Total views
349 ( #15,665 of 57,165 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
80 ( #8,016 of 57,165 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.