In good conscience

conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment

Sara Fovargue, Mary Neal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)
30 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Lack of clarity about the proper limits of conscientious refusal to participate in particular healthcare practices has given rise to fears that, in the absence of clear parameters, conscience-based exemptions may become increasingly widespread, leading to intolerable burdens on health professionals, patients, and institutions. Here, we identify three factors which clarify the proper scope of conscience-based exemptions: the liminal zone of ‘proper medical treatment’ as their territorial extent; some criteria for genuine conscientiousness; and the fact that the exercise of a valid conscience-based exemption carries certain duties with it. These restricting factors should reassure those who worry that recognising rights of conscience at all inevitably risks rampant subjectivity and self-interest on the part of professionals. At the same time, they delineate a robust conscience zone: where a claim of conscience relates to treatment with liminal status and satisfies the criteria for conscientious character, as well as the conditions for conscientious performance, it deserves muscular legal protection.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)221-241
Number of pages21
JournalMedical Law Review
Volume23
Issue number2
Early online date5 May 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

exemption
conscience
physician's care
Refusal to Participate
Therapeutics
legal protection
health professionals
Fear
subjectivity
Exercise
anxiety
Delivery of Health Care
lack
Health
performance

Keywords

  • conscience
  • conscientious objection
  • conscience-based exemptions
  • proper medical treatment
  • professional obligations
  • professional ethics

Cite this

@article{f1e0398731ee4b76902706729aac7561,
title = "In good conscience: conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment",
abstract = "Lack of clarity about the proper limits of conscientious refusal to participate in particular healthcare practices has given rise to fears that, in the absence of clear parameters, conscience-based exemptions may become increasingly widespread, leading to intolerable burdens on health professionals, patients, and institutions. Here, we identify three factors which clarify the proper scope of conscience-based exemptions: the liminal zone of ‘proper medical treatment’ as their territorial extent; some criteria for genuine conscientiousness; and the fact that the exercise of a valid conscience-based exemption carries certain duties with it. These restricting factors should reassure those who worry that recognising rights of conscience at all inevitably risks rampant subjectivity and self-interest on the part of professionals. At the same time, they delineate a robust conscience zone: where a claim of conscience relates to treatment with liminal status and satisfies the criteria for conscientious character, as well as the conditions for conscientious performance, it deserves muscular legal protection.",
keywords = "conscience, conscientious objection, conscience-based exemptions, proper medical treatment, professional obligations, professional ethics",
author = "Sara Fovargue and Mary Neal",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1093/medlaw/fwv007",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "221--241",
journal = "Medical Law Review",
issn = "0967-0742",
number = "2",

}

In good conscience : conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment. / Fovargue, Sara; Neal, Mary.

In: Medical Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2015, p. 221-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - In good conscience

T2 - conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment

AU - Fovargue, Sara

AU - Neal, Mary

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Lack of clarity about the proper limits of conscientious refusal to participate in particular healthcare practices has given rise to fears that, in the absence of clear parameters, conscience-based exemptions may become increasingly widespread, leading to intolerable burdens on health professionals, patients, and institutions. Here, we identify three factors which clarify the proper scope of conscience-based exemptions: the liminal zone of ‘proper medical treatment’ as their territorial extent; some criteria for genuine conscientiousness; and the fact that the exercise of a valid conscience-based exemption carries certain duties with it. These restricting factors should reassure those who worry that recognising rights of conscience at all inevitably risks rampant subjectivity and self-interest on the part of professionals. At the same time, they delineate a robust conscience zone: where a claim of conscience relates to treatment with liminal status and satisfies the criteria for conscientious character, as well as the conditions for conscientious performance, it deserves muscular legal protection.

AB - Lack of clarity about the proper limits of conscientious refusal to participate in particular healthcare practices has given rise to fears that, in the absence of clear parameters, conscience-based exemptions may become increasingly widespread, leading to intolerable burdens on health professionals, patients, and institutions. Here, we identify three factors which clarify the proper scope of conscience-based exemptions: the liminal zone of ‘proper medical treatment’ as their territorial extent; some criteria for genuine conscientiousness; and the fact that the exercise of a valid conscience-based exemption carries certain duties with it. These restricting factors should reassure those who worry that recognising rights of conscience at all inevitably risks rampant subjectivity and self-interest on the part of professionals. At the same time, they delineate a robust conscience zone: where a claim of conscience relates to treatment with liminal status and satisfies the criteria for conscientious character, as well as the conditions for conscientious performance, it deserves muscular legal protection.

KW - conscience

KW - conscientious objection

KW - conscience-based exemptions

KW - proper medical treatment

KW - professional obligations

KW - professional ethics

U2 - 10.1093/medlaw/fwv007

DO - 10.1093/medlaw/fwv007

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 221

EP - 241

JO - Medical Law Review

JF - Medical Law Review

SN - 0967-0742

IS - 2

ER -