In den letzten Jahren wird intensiv darüber diskutiert, ob und in welcher Weise das Gewissen im Kontext der Apotheke zu schützen ist. Der Status quo in Deutschland und Österreich sieht keine gesetzliche Regelung für dieses Problem vor. Der ethische Rahmen für eine Bewältigungsstrategie im Umgang mit dem Problem der Gewissensfreiheit in der Apotheke wird deutlich gemacht. Unter Anwendung des rechtsethischen Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzips wird das Problem mit Berücksichtigung des deutschen und österreichischen Verfassungsrechts sowie der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention auf individueller, korporativer und gesellschaftlicher Ebene (...) analysiert. Auf individueller Ebene sind die berechtigten Interessen und Güter des Apothekers einerseits und der Patientin andererseits durch eine grundrechtliche Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung zu einem schonenden Ausgleich zu bringen. Auf korporativer Ebene legitimiert das auf der Religions- und Weltanschauungsfreiheit basierende Selbstbestimmungsrecht die ideologisch profilierte Apotheke als Organisation und kann in der Binnenbeziehung der Apotheke einen Loyalitätskonflikt verursachen. Auf gesellschaftlicher Ebene stehen vier Optionen der proaktiven rechtspolitischen Gestaltung der Gewissensproblematik zur Verfügung: sozialstaatlich, libertär, professionsbezogen und kommunitär. Wie Konflikte auf individueller oder korporativer Ebene gelöst werden können, hängt von den Optionen ab, die auf gesellschaftlicher Ebene gewählt werden. Für den Fall einer Änderung des Status quo wird für zwei Lösungsansätze argumentiert: a) die Einführung einer qualifizierten Gewissensklausel für Apotheker (mit Beratungs-, Verweis-, Notfall- und Verständigungspflicht); b) die auf einen Kompromiss zwischen ideologisch profilierter pharmazeutischer Korporation (Apotheke oder Apothekervereinigung) und Sozialstaat abzielende „weiche“ kommunitäre Option. Beide Ansätze werden einem schonenden Ausgleich berechtigter Güter gerecht. (shrink)

Our goal in this article is to explicate the way, and the extent to which, euthanasia can be voluntary from both the perspective of the patient and the perspective of the health care providers involved in the patient’s care. More significantly, we aim to challenge the way in which those engaged in ongoing philosophical debates regarding the morality of euthanasia draw distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and nonvoluntary euthanasia on the grounds that drawing the distinctions in the traditional manner (1) fails (...) to reflect what is important from the patient’s perspective and (2) fails to reflect the significance of health care providers’ interests, including their autonomy and integrity. (shrink)

Arianne Shahvisi has argued that a doctor’s conscientious objection to abortion is a misuse of their authority which unduly burdens patients and, moreover, does not succeed in its aim of exculpating objectors from participating in perceived evil. We examine these claims in this response. First, we ask what the ‘conscience clause’ really requires of doctors and whether Shahvisi has interpreted it correctly. Second, we explore the notions of vulnerability and power in the doctor–patient relationship and cast doubt on Shahvisi’s claims (...) about these. Third, we tackle Shahvisi’s claim that conscientious objection is self-defeating because it entails remaing causally implicated in a chain of events leading to abortion. We show that this claim entails absurdity, then revisit the classical framework for the ethics ethics of co-operation to show that conscientious objection can suceed in exculpating objectors from perceived wrongdoing. We briefly critically evaluate the General Medical Council’s guidance on conscie... (shrink)

The conscientious refusal to dispense emergency contraception is legally protected in fourteen states. While the ethical dimensions of these objections have been explored within moral and feminist philosophy, conscientious refusal to the over-the-counter sale of EC has not been significantly studied through an egalitarian lens, especially with attention to the existing reproductive healthcare landscape in which these refusals occur. This article argues, through Amartya Sen’s capability approach, that conscientious refusal to EC creates a burdensome inequality for people wishing to prevent (...) pregnancy that manifests within a background of historical injustices, elevating its importance in our weighing of capabilities. (shrink)

This paper addresses the likely impact on women of being denied emergency contraception (EC) by pharmacists who conscientiously refuse to provide it. A common view—defended by Elizabeth Fenton and Loren Lomasky, among others—is that these refusals inconvenience rather than harm women so long as the women can easily get EC somewhere else nearby. I argue from a feminist perspective that the refusals harm women even when they can easily get EC somewhere else nearby.

Most discussions of medical futility try to answer the Futility Question: when is a medical procedure futile? No answer enjoys universal support. Some futility policies say that the health care provider will answer this question when the provider and patient cannot agree. This raises the Decision Question: who has the moral authority to decide what to do in cases where futility is disputed? I look for a procedural answer to this question, an answer that does not turn on whether a (...) given party happens to answer the Futility Question correctly. I argue that these policies get it right; the provider should decide because providers have a right of conscientious refusal that extends to refusing procedures on grounds of futility. This is a procedural answer because providers have this right even if they are sincerely mistaken about whether a procedure is futile. (shrink)

Many contributors to debates about professional conscience assume a basic, pre-professional right of conscientious refusal and proceed to address how to ‘balance’ this right against other goods. Here I argue that opponents of a right of conscientious refusal concede too much in assuming such a right, overlooking that the professions in which conscientious refusal is invoked nearly always operate as public cartels, enjoying various economic benefits, including protection from competition, made possible by governments exercising powers of coercion, regulation, and taxation. (...) To acknowledge a right of conscientious refusal is to license professionals to disrespect the profession’s clients, in opposition to liberal ideals of neutrality, and to engage in moral paternalism toward them; to permit them to violate duties of reciprocity they incur by virtue of being members of public cartels; and to compel those clients to provide material support for conceptions of the good they themselves reject. However, so long... (shrink)

Among feminist philosophers, there are two lines of argument that sexist values are illegitimate in science, focusing on epistemic or ethical problems. This article supports a third framework, elucidating how value-laden science can enable epistemic oppression. My analysis demonstrates how purported knowledge laden with sexist values can compromise epistemic autonomy and contribute to paternalism and misogyny. I exemplify these epistemic wrongs with a case study of the morning-after pill during its 2006 switch to over-the-counter availability and its new drug label (...) from the US Food and Drug Administration that it “may prevent implantation.” Antiabortion science advisers created this label to protect zygotes based on debated value judgments that were later concealed. This zygote-centric knowledge enabled them to shape potential users by instructing “good mothers” that they ought to protect zygotes and punishing “bad mothers” by refusing their requests for the drug. Therefore, I argue that the sexist values and gender norms of antiabortionists that prioritize zygotic health are illegitimate in this context because they cause epistemic injustices and perpetuate epistemic oppression. Furthermore, I advocate against blanket protections for the “right to conscience” and “religious freedom” of healthcare providers because they reinforce the epistemic oppression of women, especially those on the margins.Content Warning: This article discusses sexual assault and refusals to provide contraception to patients, including survivors. (shrink)