Abstract
Conscientious objection (CO) is the refusal to perform a legal role or responsibility because of personal beliefs. In health care, conscientious objection involves practitioners not providing certain treatments to their patients, based on reasons of morality or “conscience.” The development of conscientious objection among providers is complex and challenging. While there may exist good reasons to accommodate COs of clinical providers, the exercise of rights and beliefs of the provider has an impact on a patient’s health and/ or their access to care. For this reason, it is incumbent on the provider with a CO to minimize or eliminate the impact of their CO both on the delivery of care to the patients they serve and on the medical system in which they serve patients. The increasing exercise of CO, and its impact on large segments of the population, is made more complex by the provision of government-funded health care benefits by private entities. The result is a blurring of the lines between the public, civic space, where all people and corporate entities are expected to have similar rights and responsibilities, and the private space, where personal beliefs and restrictions are expected to be more tolerated. This paper considers the following questions: (1) What are the allowances or limits of the exercise a CO against the rights of a patient to receive care within accept practice? (2) In a society where there exist “private,” personal rights and responsibilities, as well as “civil” or public/shared rights and responsibilities, what defines the boundaries of the public, civil, and private space? (3) As providers and patients face the exercise of CO, what roles, responsibilities, and rights do organizations and institutions have in this interaction?
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Trend in State Abortion Conscience Clause Rules, Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org.
"The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine," American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics opinion, November 2007.
Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA), accessible at www.patientsafety.va.gov.
“A Medical Crisis of Conscience: Faith Drives Some To Refuse Patients Medication or Care.” Washington Post 7/16/2006.
The cost of driving to an abortion, Accessed at http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-cost-of-driving-to-an-abortion/381985/.
References
American Hospital Association Annual Survey data (2010). For community hospitals.
American Medical Association House of Delegates (2013). H 120.947 Preserving patients’ ability to have legally valid prescriptions filled. House of Delegates Resolutions, Sub. Res. 6, A-05.
Appel, J. M. (2005). ‘Conscience’ vs. care: How refusal clauses are reshaping the rights revolution, medicine and health, Rhode Island, August 2005.
Berlinger, N. (2008). Conscience clauses, health care providers, and parents. In M. Crowley (Ed.), From birth to death and bench to clinic: The Hastings Center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns (pp. 35–40). Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center.
Brody, H. (2011). Where religion, policy and bioethics meet symposium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 10 April 2011.
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care (2009). US Conference of Catholic Bishops: Accessed at http://www.usccb.org/.
Fiala, C., & Arthur, J. H. (2014). “Dishonourable disobedience”—Why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection. Woman Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 1, 12–23.
Heino, A. A. (2013). Conscientious objection and induced abortion in Europe. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 18(4), 231–233.
Irving Levin Associates, Inc. (2012). The health care acquisition report, Eighteenth Edition.
Lewis-Newby, M., et al. (2015). ATS ethics and conflict of interest committee. An official American Thoracic Society policy statement: managing conscientious objections in intensive care medicine. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 191(2), 219–227.
New York Times (1999) 16 Apr 1999.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. USA: Belknap Press.
Supreme Court of the US (1985). Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc,. Accessed at www.law.cornell.edu. Decided 26 July 1985.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
The views in this paper are those of the author alone. They do not represent the views of the National Center for Patient Safety, the Veterans Administration, or the US Government.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shanawani, H. The Challenges of Conscientious Objection in Health care. J Relig Health 55, 384–393 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0200-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0200-4