Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 507–521 | Cite as

Conscience, tolerance, and pluralism in health care

  • Daniel P. SulmasyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Increasingly, physicians are being asked to provide technical services that many (in some cases, most) believe are morally wrong or inconsistent with their beliefs about the meaning and purposes of medicine. This controversy has sparked persistent debate over whether practitioners should be permitted to decline participation in a variety of legal practices, most notably physician-assisted suicide and abortion. These debates have become heavily politicized, and some of the key words and phrases are being used without a clear understanding of their meaning. In this essay, I endeavor, firstly, to clarify the meaning of some of these terms: conscience, conscientious action, professional judgment, conscientious objection, conscience clauses, civil disobedience, and tolerance. I argue that use of the term conscientious objection to describe these refusals by health care professionals is mistaken and confusing. Secondly, relying on a proper understanding of the moral and technical character of medical judgment, the optimal deference that the state and markets ought to have toward professions, and general principles of Lockean tolerance for a diversity of practices and persons in a flourishing, pluralistic, democratic society, I offer a defense of tolerance with respect to the deeply held convictions of physicians and other health care professionals who hold minority views on contested but legal medical practices.

Keywords

Medical judgment Conscience Conscientious objection Tolerance Medical practice 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Death Penalty Information Center. 2018. States with and without the death penalty. Death Penalty Information Center, October 11. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty. Accessed October 30, 2018.
  2. 2.
    American Medical Association. 2016. Code of medical ethics opinion 9.7.3: Capital punishment. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/capital-punishment. Accessed October 30, 2018.
  3. 3.
    Snyder, Lois. 2012. American college of physicians ethics manual: sixth edition. Annals of Internal Medicine 156: 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    District of Columbia Death with Dignity Act of 2016, D.C. Law 21–182 (2017).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nirappil, Fenit. 2018. A year after D.C. passed its controversial assisted suicide law, not a single patient has used it. Washington Post, April 10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/a-year-after-dc-passed-its-assisted-suicide-law-only-two-doctors-have-signed-up/2018/04/10/823cf7e2-39ca-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html.
  6. 6.
    Sulmasy, Daniel P. 2008. What is conscience and why is respect for it so important? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29: 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sorabji, Richard. 2014. Moral conscience through the ages: Fifth century BCE to the present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sulmasy, Daniel P. 2017. Tolerance, professional judgment, and the physician’s discretionary space. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26: 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pellegrino, Edmund D. 2001. The internal morality of clinical medicine: A paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26: 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, Sara K., Christopher A. Bautista, Seo Yeon Hong, Lisa Weissfeld, and Douglas B. White. 2011. An empirical study of surrogates’ preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 183: 915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flexner, Abraham. 1915. Is social work a profession? School and Society 1: 901–911.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pellegrino, E.D. 1977. The expansion and contraction of “discretionary space.” In Priorities for the use of resources in medicine, 99–112. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Church Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oregon Death with Dignity Act. ORS 127.800–995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Locke, John. 2010. An essay concerning toleration. In A letter concerning toleration and other writings, ed. Mark Goldie, 105–140. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stahl, Ronit Y., and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. 2017. Physicians, not conscripts—conscientious objection in health care. New England Journal of Medicine 376: 1380–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savulescu, Julian, and Udo Schuklenk. 2017. Doctors have no right to refuse medical assistance in dying, abortion or contraception. Bioethics 31: 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis, Michael. 2011. Professional codes. In The Sage handbook of healthcare ethics, ed. Ruth Chadwick, Henk ten Have, and Eric M. Meslin, 63–72. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sulmasy, Daniel P. 2016. Physician, heal thyself: Doctors in a pluralist democracy. In The professions and civic life, ed. Gary J. Schmitt, 95–111. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Toqueville, Alexis. 2000. Democracy in America. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raven, David. 2016. Man who chopped off own ears to look like his parrot has bizarre new name. Mirror, March 25. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-chopped-ears-look-7627260.
  23. 23.
    Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Belouin, Sean J., and Jack E. Henningfield. 2018. Psychedelics: where we are now, why we got here, what we must do. Neuropharmacology 142: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.André Hellegers Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of EthicsGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations