Conscientious objection: a morally insupportable misuse of authority

Clinical Ethics 13 (2):82-87 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the conscience clause around abortion provision in England, Scotland and Wales is inadequate for two reasons. First, the patient and doctor are differently situated with respect to social power. Doctors occupy a position of significant moral and epistemic authority with respect to their patients, who are vulnerable and relatively disempowered. Doctors are rightly required to disclose their conscientious objection, but given the positioning of the patient and doctor, the act of doing so exploits the authority of the medical establishment in asserting the legitimacy of a particular moral view. Second, the conscientious objector plays an unusual and self-defeating moral role. Since she must immediately refer the patient on to another doctor who does not hold a conscientious objection, she becomes complicit, via her necessary causal role, in the implementation of the procedure. This means that doctors are not able to prevent abortions, rather, they are required to ensure that they...

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

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

Conscientious refusal and a doctors's right to quit.John K. Davis - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (1):75 – 91.
When should conscientious objection be accepted.Morten Magelssen - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (1):18-21.
Selective Conscientious Objection.Mark Anderson & William O’Meara - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14 (9999):1-19.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-01-12

Downloads
33 (#447,419)

6 months
6 (#349,140)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Arianne Shahvisi
Brighton And Sussex Medical School