Conscientious refusal by physicians and pharmacists: who is obligated to do what, and why?
- Dan W. Brock
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Some medical services have long generated deep moral controversy within the medical profession as well as in broader society and have led to conscientious refusals by some physicians to provide those services to their patients. More recently, pharmacists in a number of states have refused on grounds of conscience to fill legal prescriptions for their customers. This paper assesses these controversies. First, I offer a brief account of the basis and limits of the claim to be free to act on one’s conscience. Second, I sketch an account of the basis of the medical and pharmacy professions’ responsibilities and the process by which they are specified and change over time. Third, I then set out and defend what I call the “conventional compromise” as a reasonable accommodation to conflicts between these professions’ responsibilities and the moral integrity of their individual members. Finally, I take up and reject the complicity objection to the conventional compromise. Put together, this provides my answer to the question posed in the title of my paper: “Conscientious refusal by physicians and pharmacists: who is obligated to do what, and why?”.
- Scope Note. 2006. Pharmacists and conscientious objection. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (4): 379–396. CrossRef
- Rohde, Marie. 2008. Rebuke upheld in refusal to fill birth control. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=732092. Accessed 23 May 2008.
- Childress, James. 1985. Civil disobedience, conscientious objection, and evasive non-compliance: A framework for the analysis and assessment of illegal actions in health care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (1): 63–83.
- Benn, Piers. 2007. Conscience and health care ethics. In Principles of health care ethics: Second edition, ed. Richard Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Helen Draper, and J. McMillan. London: Wiley.
- Sulmasy, Daniel. 2008. What is conscience and why is respect for it so important? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (3). doi:10.1007/s11017-008-9072-2
- Lawrence, Ryan, and Farr Curlin. 2007. Clash of definitions: Controversies about conscience in medicine. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (12): 10–13. CrossRef
- Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Brock, Dan. 1995. Public moral discourse. In Society’s choices: Social and ethical decision making in biomedicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- Wicclair, Mark. 2000. Conscientious objection in medicine. Bioethics 14 (3): 205–227. CrossRef
- National Women’s Law Center. Partners in access: Working with state pharmacy boards to stop refusals in the pharmacy. http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyToolkit-1-2008.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2008.
- Wicclair, Mark. 2006. Pharmacies, pharmacists, and conscientious objection. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (3): 225250. CrossRef
- Card, Robert. 2007. Conscientious objection and emergency contraception. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6): 8–14. CrossRef
- FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. 2006. Issues in current service delivery: Ethical guidelines on conscientious objection. Reproductive Health Matters 14 (27): 148–149. CrossRef
- Dickens, Bernard, and Roberta Cook. 2000. The scope and limits of conscientious objection. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 71: 71–77. CrossRef
- State of Oregon Death with Dignity Act. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml. Accessed 23 May 2008.
- Charo, R. Alta. 2005. The celestial fire of conscience: Refusing to deliver medical care. New England Journal of Medicine 352 (24): 2471–2473. CrossRef
- Savulescu, Julian. 2006. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 332: 294–297. CrossRef
- Curlin, Farr, Ryan Lawrence, Marshall Chin, and John Lantos. 2007. Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices. New England Journal of Medicine 356: 593–600. CrossRef
- Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.
- Conscientious refusal by physicians and pharmacists: who is obligated to do what, and why?
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
Volume 29, Issue 3 , pp 187-200
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Dan W. Brock (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 651 Huntington Avenue, FXB Building, Rm 643, Boston, MA, 02115, USA