Two Concepts of Conscience and their Implications for Conscience-Based Refusal in Healthcare
Healthcare professionals are not currently obliged to justify conscientious objections. As a consequence, there are currently no practical limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Recently, a number of bioethicists, including Christopher Meyers, Robert D. Woods, Robert Card, L...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 2017-01, Vol.26 (1), p.97-108 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 108 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 97 |
| container_title | Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| container_volume | 26 |
| creator | CLARKE, STEVE |
| description | Healthcare professionals are not currently obliged to justify conscientious objections. As a consequence, there are currently no practical limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Recently, a number of bioethicists, including Christopher Meyers, Robert D. Woods, Robert Card, Lori Kantymir, and Carolyn McLeod, have raised concerns about this situation and have offered proposals to place principled limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Here, I seek to adjudicate among their proposals. I argue that to adjudicate among them properly it is important to consider the theoretical bases for conscientious objection. I further argue that there are two such bases to be considered. Some conscientious objections are justified by appeal to all-things-considered moral judgments, and some are justified by appeal to the “dictates of conscience.” I argue that both of these bases are legitimate and that both should be accommodated in any principled scheme to limit the scope of conscientious refusals in healthcare. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0963180116000670 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1847895463</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0963180116000670</cupid><sourcerecordid>1847895463</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-723cf1025dd5d0477e09f83d03caf92ba2ede7a6277c993cf585af60a559ae153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotlYfwI0E3LgZzWUymSy1eCkIgpedMKTJiR2ZS01mEN_ejK1SFFcJ-b_znfAjdEjJKSVUnj0QlXGaE0ozQkgmyRYa0zRTCaOp3EbjIU6GfIT2QniNDGOE7qIRk4qnIlNj9Pz43uJp2xhYdgG3brgHU0J8wLqxuFtA6fGsXlal0V0ZQ-xav0ElFzqAxffg-qArXDb4BnTVLYz2sI92nK4CHKzPCXq6unyc3iS3d9ez6fltYrjkXSIZN44SJqwVlqRSAlEu55Zwo51ic83AgtQZk9IoFVmRC-0yooVQGqjgE3Sy8i59-9ZD6Iq6DAaqSjfQ9qGgeSpzJdKMR_T4F_ra9r6Jv_ui0lgfH4R0RRnfhuDBFUtf1tp_FJQUQ_XFn-rjzNHa3M9rsD8T311HgK-lup770r7Axu5_tZ_a1oyP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1847414635</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Two Concepts of Conscience and their Implications for Conscience-Based Refusal in Healthcare</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>CLARKE, STEVE</creator><creatorcontrib>CLARKE, STEVE</creatorcontrib><description>Healthcare professionals are not currently obliged to justify conscientious objections. As a consequence, there are currently no practical limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Recently, a number of bioethicists, including Christopher Meyers, Robert D. Woods, Robert Card, Lori Kantymir, and Carolyn McLeod, have raised concerns about this situation and have offered proposals to place principled limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Here, I seek to adjudicate among their proposals. I argue that to adjudicate among them properly it is important to consider the theoretical bases for conscientious objection. I further argue that there are two such bases to be considered. Some conscientious objections are justified by appeal to all-things-considered moral judgments, and some are justified by appeal to the “dictates of conscience.” I argue that both of these bases are legitimate and that both should be accommodated in any principled scheme to limit the scope of conscientious refusals in healthcare.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0963-1801</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-2147</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0963180116000670</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27934569</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Adjudication ; Bioethics ; Conscience ; Conscientious objectors ; Credit ; Delivery of Health Care - ethics ; Disclosure ; Health care ; Health Personnel - ethics ; Health services ; Humans ; Judgment ; Medical ethics ; Medical personnel ; Moral judgment ; Morality ; Morals ; Refusal ; Refusal to Treat - ethics ; Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives</subject><ispartof>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 2017-01, Vol.26 (1), p.97-108</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-723cf1025dd5d0477e09f83d03caf92ba2ede7a6277c993cf585af60a559ae153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-723cf1025dd5d0477e09f83d03caf92ba2ede7a6277c993cf585af60a559ae153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0963180116000670/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,12845,27865,27923,27924,30998,55627</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27934569$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>CLARKE, STEVE</creatorcontrib><title>Two Concepts of Conscience and their Implications for Conscience-Based Refusal in Healthcare</title><title>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</title><addtitle>Camb Q Healthc Ethics</addtitle><description>Healthcare professionals are not currently obliged to justify conscientious objections. As a consequence, there are currently no practical limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Recently, a number of bioethicists, including Christopher Meyers, Robert D. Woods, Robert Card, Lori Kantymir, and Carolyn McLeod, have raised concerns about this situation and have offered proposals to place principled limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Here, I seek to adjudicate among their proposals. I argue that to adjudicate among them properly it is important to consider the theoretical bases for conscientious objection. I further argue that there are two such bases to be considered. Some conscientious objections are justified by appeal to all-things-considered moral judgments, and some are justified by appeal to the “dictates of conscience.” I argue that both of these bases are legitimate and that both should be accommodated in any principled scheme to limit the scope of conscientious refusals in healthcare.</description><subject>Adjudication</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Conscience</subject><subject>Conscientious objectors</subject><subject>Credit</subject><subject>Delivery of Health Care - ethics</subject><subject>Disclosure</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Personnel - ethics</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Moral judgment</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Morals</subject><subject>Refusal</subject><subject>Refusal to Treat - ethics</subject><subject>Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives</subject><issn>0963-1801</issn><issn>1469-2147</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMotlYfwI0E3LgZzWUymSy1eCkIgpedMKTJiR2ZS01mEN_ejK1SFFcJ-b_znfAjdEjJKSVUnj0QlXGaE0ozQkgmyRYa0zRTCaOp3EbjIU6GfIT2QniNDGOE7qIRk4qnIlNj9Pz43uJp2xhYdgG3brgHU0J8wLqxuFtA6fGsXlal0V0ZQ-xav0ElFzqAxffg-qArXDb4BnTVLYz2sI92nK4CHKzPCXq6unyc3iS3d9ez6fltYrjkXSIZN44SJqwVlqRSAlEu55Zwo51ic83AgtQZk9IoFVmRC-0yooVQGqjgE3Sy8i59-9ZD6Iq6DAaqSjfQ9qGgeSpzJdKMR_T4F_ra9r6Jv_ui0lgfH4R0RRnfhuDBFUtf1tp_FJQUQ_XFn-rjzNHa3M9rsD8T311HgK-lup770r7Axu5_tZ_a1oyP</recordid><startdate>201701</startdate><enddate>201701</enddate><creator>CLARKE, STEVE</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201701</creationdate><title>Two Concepts of Conscience and their Implications for Conscience-Based Refusal in Healthcare</title><author>CLARKE, STEVE</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c373t-723cf1025dd5d0477e09f83d03caf92ba2ede7a6277c993cf585af60a559ae153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adjudication</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Conscience</topic><topic>Conscientious objectors</topic><topic>Credit</topic><topic>Delivery of Health Care - ethics</topic><topic>Disclosure</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Personnel - ethics</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Moral judgment</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Morals</topic><topic>Refusal</topic><topic>Refusal to Treat - ethics</topic><topic>Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CLARKE, STEVE</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</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>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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 Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CLARKE, STEVE</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Two Concepts of Conscience and their Implications for Conscience-Based Refusal in Healthcare</atitle><jtitle>Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</jtitle><addtitle>Camb Q Healthc Ethics</addtitle><date>2017-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>97</spage><epage>108</epage><pages>97-108</pages><issn>0963-1801</issn><eissn>1469-2147</eissn><abstract>Healthcare professionals are not currently obliged to justify conscientious objections. As a consequence, there are currently no practical limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Recently, a number of bioethicists, including Christopher Meyers, Robert D. Woods, Robert Card, Lori Kantymir, and Carolyn McLeod, have raised concerns about this situation and have offered proposals to place principled limits on the scope of conscience-based refusals in healthcare. Here, I seek to adjudicate among their proposals. I argue that to adjudicate among them properly it is important to consider the theoretical bases for conscientious objection. I further argue that there are two such bases to be considered. Some conscientious objections are justified by appeal to all-things-considered moral judgments, and some are justified by appeal to the “dictates of conscience.” I argue that both of these bases are legitimate and that both should be accommodated in any principled scheme to limit the scope of conscientious refusals in healthcare.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>27934569</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0963180116000670</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0963-1801 |
| ispartof | Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 2017-01, Vol.26 (1), p.97-108 |
| issn | 0963-1801 1469-2147 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1847895463 |
| source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Adjudication Bioethics Conscience Conscientious objectors Credit Delivery of Health Care - ethics Disclosure Health care Health Personnel - ethics Health services Humans Judgment Medical ethics Medical personnel Moral judgment Morality Morals Refusal Refusal to Treat - ethics Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives |
| title | Two Concepts of Conscience and their Implications for Conscience-Based Refusal in Healthcare |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T11%3A16%3A24IST&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=Two%20Concepts%20of%20Conscience%20and%20their%20Implications%20for%20Conscience-Based%20Refusal%20in%20Healthcare&rft.jtitle=Cambridge%20quarterly%20of%20healthcare%20ethics&rft.au=CLARKE,%20STEVE&rft.date=2017-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=97&rft.epage=108&rft.pages=97-108&rft.issn=0963-1801&rft.eissn=1469-2147&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0963180116000670&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1847895463%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=1847414635&rft_id=info:pmid/27934569&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0963180116000670&rfr_iscdi=true |