AbstractWe live in a liberal, pluralistic, largely secular society where, in theory, there is fundamental protection for freedom of conscience generally and freedom of religion in particular. There is, however, both in statute and common law, increasing pressure on religious believers and conscientious objectors to act in ways that violate their sincere, deeply held beliefs. This is particularly so in health care, where conscientious objection is coming under extreme pressure. I argue that freedom of religion and conscience need to be put on a sounder footing both legislatively and by the courts, particularly in health care. I examine a number of important legal cases in the UK and US, where freedom of religion and conscience have come into conflict with government mandates or equality and anti-discrimination law. In these and other cases we find one of two results: either the conscientious objector loses out against competing rights, or the conscientious objector succeeds, but due to what I consider unsound judicial reasoning. In particular, cases involving cooperation in what the objector considers morally impermissible according to their beliefs have been wrongly understood by some American courts. I argue that a reasonable theory of cooperation incorporated into judicial thinking would enable more acceptable results that gave sufficient protection to conscientious objectors without risking a judicial backlash against objectors who wanted to take their freedoms too far. I also venture into broader, more controversial waters concerning what I call freedom of dissociation – the fundamental right to withdraw from associating with people, groups, and activities. It is no more than the converse of freedom of association, which all free societies recognise as a basic right. How far should freedom of dissociation go? What might society be like if freedom of dissociation were given more protection in law than it currently has? It would certainly give freedom of religion and conscience a substantial foundation, but it could also lead to discriminatory behaviour to which many people would object. I explore some of these issues, before going back to the narrower area of freedom of conscience and religion in health care, making some proposals about how the law could strengthen these basic pillars of a liberal, free society.
Similar books and articles
The Foundations of Conscientious Objection: Against Freedom and Autonomy.Yossi Nehushtan & John Danaher - 2018 - Jurisprudence 9 (3):541-565.
Inclusivity and Equality: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion in Republican Society.Alan M. S. J. Coffee - 2008 - Politics in Central Europe 4 (2):26-40.
El tratamiento de la objeción de conciencia en el Consejo de Europa.Daniel Capodiferro Cubero - 2017 - 'Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de Las Religiones 22:71-96.
William Ames's Calvinist Ambiguity Over Freedom of Conscience.James Calvin Davis - 2005 - Journal of Religious Ethics 33 (2):333 - 355.
Justification for Conscience Exemptions in Health Care.Lori Kantymir & Carolyn McLeod - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (8):16-23.
Freedom of Conscience and Health Care in the United States of America: The Conflict Between Public Health and Religious Liberty in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.Peter West-Oram - 2013 - Health Care Analysis 21 (3):237-247.
Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis.Mark R. Wicclair - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.
Why Tolerate Conscience?François Boucher & Cécile Laborde - forthcoming - Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-21.
Freedom of Conscience in Health Care: Distinctions and Limits. [REVIEW]Sean Murphy & Stephen J. Genuis - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (3):347-354.
Thomas Aquinas – Human Dignity and Conscience as a Basis for Restricting Legal Obligations.Marek Piechowiak - 2016 - Diametros 47:64-83.
False Convictions and True Conscience.Candice Delmas - 2015 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 35 (2):403-425.
Conscientious Objection in Healthcare Provision: A New Dimension.Peter West-Oram & Alena Buyx - 2016 - Bioethics 30 (4):336-343.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Conscientious Objection and Clinical Judgement: The Right to Refuse to Harm.Toni C. Saad - 2019 - The New Bioethics 25 (3):248-261.
COVID-19 and Compulsory Vaccination: An Acceptable Form of Coercion?James E. Hurford - 2021 - The New Bioethics 28 (1):4-26.
The Reasonableness Standard for Conscientious Objection in Healthcare.Massimo Reichlin - 2022 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 19 (2):255-264.
Rethinking Acts of Conscience: Personal Integrity, Civility, and the Common Good.Ernesto V. Garcia - 2022 - Philosophy 97 (4):461-483.
References found in this work
No references found.