Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conscientious Objection

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Abstract

Conscientious objection by health professionals is a global phenomenon. Worldwide, reproductive health care (e.g., abortion and contraception) is the most common basis of conscience-based refusals, but other healthcare services have also prompted conscientious objections. This entry defines conscientious objection; presents reasons for permitting health professionals to refuse to provide, assist in providing, or offer information about a healthcare service for reasons of conscience; identifies the potential impact of conscience-based refusals on patient access and on other providers and healthcare institutions; explains alternative approaches to resolving conflicts between providers’ integrity interests and patients’ access interests; and considers the status of conscience-based refusals by health professionals in international and national law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Brock, D. (2008). Conscientious refusal by physicians and pharmacists: Who is obligated to do what, and why? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 29, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannold, L. (1994). Consequences for patients of health care professionals’ conscientious actions: The ban on abortions in South Australia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 20(2), 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Opening for signature: 4 November 1950 (Rome). Entry into force 3 September 1953. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005%26CL=ENG. Accessed 12 July 2014.

  • Council of Europe. (2010). The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care. Resolution 1763, adopted by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly on 7 October 2010 (35th sitting). Available at http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta10/ERES1763.htm. Accessed 12 July 2014.

  • Dickens, B. M., & Cook, R. J. (2011). Conscientious commitment to women’s health. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 113(2), 163–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Union Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights. (2005). Opinion No. 4–2005: The right to conscientious objection and the conclusion by EU member States of Concordats with the Holy See. 14 December 2005. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/cfr_cdfopinion4_2005_en.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2014

  • Finer, L., & Fine, J. B. (2013). Abortion law around the world: Progress and pushback. American Journal of Public Health, 103(4), 585–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heino, A., Gissler, M., Apter, D., & Fiala, C. (2013). Conscientious objection and induced abortion in Europe. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 18(4), 231–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (2006). The ethical standard of care. American Journal of Bioethics, 6(2), 76–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J. (2006). Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal, 332, 294–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series (Vol. 999, p. 171). Available at http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. Accessed 12 July 2014.

  • UN Human Rights Committee. (1993). General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session). Available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/hrcom22.htm

  • Wicclair, M. R. (2011). Conscientious objection in health care: An ethical analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2012). Safe abortion: Technical and policy guidance for health systems (2nd ed.). Available at http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/9789241548434/en/. Accessed 12 July 2014.

  • Zampas, C. (2013). Legal and ethical standards for protecting women’s human rights and the practice of conscientious objection in reproductive healthcare settings. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 123(Suppl. 3), 563–565.

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Lynch, H. F. (2008). Conflicts of conscience in health care: An institutional compromise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, E. D. (2002). The physician’s conscience, conscience clauses, and religious beliefs: A Catholic perspective. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulmasy, D. P. (2008). What is conscience and why is respect for it so important? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 29(3), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicclair, M. (2013). Conscience. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ethics (Vol. 2, pp. 1009–1020). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, 6312-26506, WV, USA

    Mark R. Wicclair

  2. Center for Bioethics and Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Mark R. Wicclair

Authors
  1. Mark R. Wicclair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark R. Wicclair .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duquesne University Center for Healthcare Ethics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Henk ten Have

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Wicclair, M.R. (2014). Conscientious Objection. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_118-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_118-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation