A halfway house in the conscientious objection debate


Conscientious objection has come under fire recently, and several leading bioethics journals have published articles criticising healthcare professionals who object to participation in controversial procedures.

The latest addition to the literature, an article published online first in the Journal of Medical Ethics this week, criticises “conscience absolutists” who suggest that even the most remote forms of cooperation in pregnancy termination constitute licit grounds for conscientious objection.  

In his article “Conscientious objection in healthcare and the duty to refer”,  Christopher Cowley, a bioethicist at University College Dublin argues in favour of current UK abortion regulations, which permit conscientious objection, though only under certain conditions. NHS guidelines allow clinicians to abstain from participation in terminations, but nevertheless requires them to provide “reliable information” to patients about abortion services they could use.

Against “conscience absolutists”, Cowley argues that objecting doctors, as representatives of the NHS system, have a duty provide “reliable information” to patients about abortion services. Importantly, he argues that mere provision of information does not constitute formal cooperation in the procedure.

“the provision of information is not a necessary or indispensable link in the chain of actions leading to the abortion, since, after receiving the information, the patient leaves the NHS space and becomes a free agent, ready to make her...own decisions.”

Cowley argues that abortion is a “contestable” ethical issue, in the way that something like the Rawandan geocide was not.

In light of the reasonable disagreement that we have over abortion, conscientious objectors must acknowledge the rights of healthcare professionals and indeed patients, to act in accord with their ethical beliefs about pregnancy terminations.

“...the [objecting] GP also has to find a way to embrace (not just tolerate) this pluralism if she is to cooperate fully with her non-objecting colleagues and managers, and if she is to treat her patients with her full concern despite their deep moral disagreement”.

While Cowley offers a criticism of conscience absolutists in this article, he has in the past criticised those who argue that doctors must refer patients to abortionists.




MORE ON THESE TOPICS | abortion, conscientious objection, duty to refer

This article is published by Xavier Symons and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

 
 Search BioEdge

 Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter
rss Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed


 Best of the web
 
comments powered by Disqus