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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 221-241 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Medical Law Review |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 5 May 2015 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Keywords
- conscience
- conscientious objection
- conscience-based exemptions
- proper medical treatment
- professional obligations
- professional ethics