Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer

Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (4):207-212 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Although some healthcare professionals have the legal right to conscientiously object to authorise or perform certain lawful medical services, they have an associated duty to provide the patient with enough information to seek out another professional willing to authorise or provide the service (the ‘duty to refer’). Does the duty to refer morally undermine the professional's conscientious objection (CO)? I narrow my discussion to the National Health Service in Britain, and the case of a general practitioner (GP) being asked by a pregnant woman to authorise an abortion. I will be careful not to enter the debate about whether abortion should be legalised, or the debate about whether CO should be permitted—I will take both as given. I defend the objecting GP's duty to refer against those I call the ‘conscience absolutists’, who would claim that if a state is serious enough in permitting the GP's objection in the first place (as is the UK), then it has to recognise the right to withhold any information about abortion.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Selective Conscientious Objection.Mark Anderson & William O’Meara - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14 (9999):1-19.
The Victorian Abortion Law - One Year On.Kevin McGovern - 2009 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 15 (2):1.
When should conscientious objection be accepted.Morten Magelssen - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (1):18-21.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-03-26

Downloads
66 (#247,426)

6 months
15 (#171,570)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christopher Cowley
University College Dublin