Conscience, conscientious objections, and medicine

To inform the ongoing discussion of whether claims of conscientious objection allow medical professionals to refuse to perform tasks that would otherwise be their duty, this paper begins with a review of the philosophical literature that describes conscience as either a moral sense or the dictate of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Theoretical medicine and bioethics 2019-12, Vol.40 (6), p.487-506
1. Verfasser: Rhodes, Rosamond
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 506
container_issue 6
container_start_page 487
container_title Theoretical medicine and bioethics
container_volume 40
creator Rhodes, Rosamond
description To inform the ongoing discussion of whether claims of conscientious objection allow medical professionals to refuse to perform tasks that would otherwise be their duty, this paper begins with a review of the philosophical literature that describes conscience as either a moral sense or the dictate of reason. Even though authors have starkly different views on what conscience is, advocates of both approaches agree that conscience should be obeyed and that keeping promises is a conscience-given moral imperative. The paper then considers exemplars of conscientious objection—Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.—to identify the critical feature of conscientious objection as willingness to bear the burdens of one’s convictions. It concludes by showing that medical professionals who put their own interests before their patients’ welfare violate their previous commitments and misappropriate the title “conscientious objector” because they are unwilling to bear the burdens of their choices and instead impose burdens on their patients and colleagues.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11017-019-09513-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2322053479</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2322053479</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89c513926299702545b635a380bcae4b78fe2ed8e947b7177f91e58340bf2e493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1OwzAQhC0EoqXwAhxQJK417NpxbR9RVX6kSlzgbMXuBqWiSbGbA2-PSwrcOO1IOzNrf4xdItwggL5NiICaA1oOVqHk9oiNUWnJUQAcZy3NjOsS1YidpbQGyDEjTtlIorZaoBozMe_aFBpqA02LcNC7putT0fk1hSzbNC2qdlVsaNWEpqVzdlJX74kuDnPCXu8XL_NHvnx-eJrfLXmQWu24sSG_yYqZsFaDUKXyM6kqacCHikqvTU2CVoZsqb1GrWuLpIwswdeCSisn7Hro3cbuo6e0c-uuj20-6YQUApQs9d4lBleIXUqRareNzaaKnw7B7TG5AZPLmNw3JrcPXR2qe5-_9Rv54ZINcjCkvGrfKP7d_qf2C62QcHc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2322053479</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conscience, conscientious objections, and medicine</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Rhodes, Rosamond</creator><creatorcontrib>Rhodes, Rosamond</creatorcontrib><description>To inform the ongoing discussion of whether claims of conscientious objection allow medical professionals to refuse to perform tasks that would otherwise be their duty, this paper begins with a review of the philosophical literature that describes conscience as either a moral sense or the dictate of reason. Even though authors have starkly different views on what conscience is, advocates of both approaches agree that conscience should be obeyed and that keeping promises is a conscience-given moral imperative. The paper then considers exemplars of conscientious objection—Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.—to identify the critical feature of conscientious objection as willingness to bear the burdens of one’s convictions. It concludes by showing that medical professionals who put their own interests before their patients’ welfare violate their previous commitments and misappropriate the title “conscientious objector” because they are unwilling to bear the burdens of their choices and instead impose burdens on their patients and colleagues.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-7415</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1200</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0980</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11017-019-09513-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31797215</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Conscientious objectors ; Education ; Ethics ; General Surgery ; History of Medicine ; Medical personnel ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Medicine ; Right to die ; Theory of Medicine/Bioethics</subject><ispartof>Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2019-12, Vol.40 (6), p.487-506</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><rights>Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89c513926299702545b635a380bcae4b78fe2ed8e947b7177f91e58340bf2e493</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89c513926299702545b635a380bcae4b78fe2ed8e947b7177f91e58340bf2e493</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11017-019-09513-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11017-019-09513-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31797215$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rhodes, Rosamond</creatorcontrib><title>Conscience, conscientious objections, and medicine</title><title>Theoretical medicine and bioethics</title><addtitle>Theor Med Bioeth</addtitle><addtitle>Theor Med Bioeth</addtitle><description>To inform the ongoing discussion of whether claims of conscientious objection allow medical professionals to refuse to perform tasks that would otherwise be their duty, this paper begins with a review of the philosophical literature that describes conscience as either a moral sense or the dictate of reason. Even though authors have starkly different views on what conscience is, advocates of both approaches agree that conscience should be obeyed and that keeping promises is a conscience-given moral imperative. The paper then considers exemplars of conscientious objection—Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.—to identify the critical feature of conscientious objection as willingness to bear the burdens of one’s convictions. It concludes by showing that medical professionals who put their own interests before their patients’ welfare violate their previous commitments and misappropriate the title “conscientious objector” because they are unwilling to bear the burdens of their choices and instead impose burdens on their patients and colleagues.</description><subject>Conscientious objectors</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>General Surgery</subject><subject>History of Medicine</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Medicine</subject><subject>Right to die</subject><subject>Theory of Medicine/Bioethics</subject><issn>1386-7415</issn><issn>1573-1200</issn><issn>1573-0980</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1OwzAQhC0EoqXwAhxQJK417NpxbR9RVX6kSlzgbMXuBqWiSbGbA2-PSwrcOO1IOzNrf4xdItwggL5NiICaA1oOVqHk9oiNUWnJUQAcZy3NjOsS1YidpbQGyDEjTtlIorZaoBozMe_aFBpqA02LcNC7putT0fk1hSzbNC2qdlVsaNWEpqVzdlJX74kuDnPCXu8XL_NHvnx-eJrfLXmQWu24sSG_yYqZsFaDUKXyM6kqacCHikqvTU2CVoZsqb1GrWuLpIwswdeCSisn7Hro3cbuo6e0c-uuj20-6YQUApQs9d4lBleIXUqRareNzaaKnw7B7TG5AZPLmNw3JrcPXR2qe5-_9Rv54ZINcjCkvGrfKP7d_qf2C62QcHc</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Rhodes, Rosamond</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>Conscience, conscientious objections, and medicine</title><author>Rhodes, Rosamond</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-89c513926299702545b635a380bcae4b78fe2ed8e947b7177f91e58340bf2e493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Conscientious objectors</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>General Surgery</topic><topic>History of Medicine</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Medicine</topic><topic>Right to die</topic><topic>Theory of Medicine/Bioethics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rhodes, Rosamond</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Theoretical medicine and bioethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rhodes, Rosamond</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conscience, conscientious objections, and medicine</atitle><jtitle>Theoretical medicine and bioethics</jtitle><stitle>Theor Med Bioeth</stitle><addtitle>Theor Med Bioeth</addtitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>487</spage><epage>506</epage><pages>487-506</pages><issn>1386-7415</issn><eissn>1573-1200</eissn><eissn>1573-0980</eissn><abstract>To inform the ongoing discussion of whether claims of conscientious objection allow medical professionals to refuse to perform tasks that would otherwise be their duty, this paper begins with a review of the philosophical literature that describes conscience as either a moral sense or the dictate of reason. Even though authors have starkly different views on what conscience is, advocates of both approaches agree that conscience should be obeyed and that keeping promises is a conscience-given moral imperative. The paper then considers exemplars of conscientious objection—Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.—to identify the critical feature of conscientious objection as willingness to bear the burdens of one’s convictions. It concludes by showing that medical professionals who put their own interests before their patients’ welfare violate their previous commitments and misappropriate the title “conscientious objector” because they are unwilling to bear the burdens of their choices and instead impose burdens on their patients and colleagues.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>31797215</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11017-019-09513-9</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1386-7415
ispartof Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2019-12, Vol.40 (6), p.487-506
issn 1386-7415
1573-1200
1573-0980
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2322053479
source SpringerNature Journals
subjects Conscientious objectors
Education
Ethics
General Surgery
History of Medicine
Medical personnel
Philosophy
Philosophy of Medicine
Right to die
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
title Conscience, conscientious objections, and medicine
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T15%3A09%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conscience,%20conscientious%20objections,%20and%20medicine&rft.jtitle=Theoretical%20medicine%20and%20bioethics&rft.au=Rhodes,%20Rosamond&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=487&rft.epage=506&rft.pages=487-506&rft.issn=1386-7415&rft.eissn=1573-1200&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11017-019-09513-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2322053479%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2322053479&rft_id=info:pmid/31797215&rfr_iscdi=true