Disputes about conscientious refusals reflect, at root, two rival accounts of what medicine is for and what physicians reasonably profess. On what we call the "provider of services
We 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 particul
The question of whether health care professionals should have a legally protected right to refuse, on the basis of claims of “conscience,” to provide patients with legally requeste
Through our individual conscience, we become aware of our deeply held moral principles, we are motivated to act upon them, and we assess our character, our behavior and ultimately
Recorded examples of conscientious objection to political authority date back at least to ancient Greece when Socrates refused an order to arrest a fellow citizen. But Socrates sim
When healthcare professionals ask for a conscientious objection to be accommodated, they are requesting an exemption from a work role they object to, on moral or religious grounds.
Because of her religious mission, which is universal in nature, the Catholic Church feels deeply committed to assisting today's men and women in advancing the great cause of justic
The theme to which you have called the participants' attention, and therefore also that of the Ecclesial Community and of public opinion, is very significant: the Christian consci
Arguments around the protection of conscience are most common in spheres where people believe that it would be wrong to do something (e.g. use violence against an enemy, abort a human foetus, practice deceit, etc.) and also that they have a right not to be required to do this. The basic idea is that it is wrong to act against one’s conscience whether on one’s own behalf or at the orders of another. Beyond this it is argued that conscientious objection should be respected (not overridden) and protected by being enshrined in professional and legal codes. Opponents of unlimited and even minimal protection argue that whatever personal views someone may have once they are in a public role the must abide by the requirements of that. This is in part because certain tasks are part of that role, and because the role itself and its responsibilities is mandated by a community or society at large. Debates about the scope of conscientious objection and protection have broadened and intensified with the rise of the idea of moral and political ‘treatment’ rights. Thus, the debates around the requirement on health care practitioners to assist in procedures to which they are morally opposed, and of providers of goods and services to make these available to people in relationships of which the providers disapprove.