Author Description

Societies around the world are becoming increasingly multicultural, while the range of new or controversial medical procedures that are available to patients also grows. This has led to an increase in claims from health care professionals regarding their right to abide by their own moral or religious views and refuse a long list medical interventions or drugs. This list includes abortions, euthanasia, access to contraceptives, sterilizations, cosmetic surgery, and many others. Depending on circumstances, these interventions might or might not be consistent with professional standards; however, when deciding whether to provide them, many doctors would rely on their own conscientious views about the morality of each case instead of professional standards. As societies become more pluralistic and the range of medical options continues to grow, it is inevitable that the problem of conscientious objection in health care will as well. Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Health Care presents the case against the right of health care professionals to refuse delivery of certain health care services based on their moral views. It provides philosophical analyses of conscience and freedom of conscience, as well as the arguments and principles typically utilized when arguing in favor of allowing health care professionals conscientious objection. The authors criticize those arguments and offer a philosophical and historical analysis of the concept of professionalism, as well as an appeal to the nature of professional obligations, to build their case against the right to conscientious objection in health care. They explain why arguments for pluralism, tolerance, and diversity which support a right to freedom of conscience in society at large do not necessarily support the same right within the health care profession, or indeed any profession that is governed by internal norms of professionalism which an individual freely decides to enter.