|
|
| Research article summary (published 27 Feb 2009): |
Legal protection and limits of conscientious objection: when conscientious objection is unethical.
Full Abstract
The right to conscientious objection is founded on human rights to act according to individuals' religious and other conscience. Domestic and international human rights laws recognize such entitlements. Healthcare providers cannot be discriminated against, for instance in employment, on the basis of their beliefs. They are required, however, to be equally respectful of rights to conscience of patients and potential patients. They cannot invoke their human rights to violate the human rights of others. There are legal limits to conscientious objection. Laws in some jurisdictions unethically abuse religious conscience by granting excessive rights to refuse care.. In general, healthcare providers owe duties of care to patients that may conflict with their refusal of care on grounds of conscience. The reconciliation of patients' rights to care and providers' rights of conscientious objection is in the duty of objectors in good faith to refer their patients to reasonably accessible providers who are known not to object. Conscientious objection is unethical when healthcare practitioners treat patients only as means to their own spiritual ends. Practitioners who would place their own spiritual or other interests above their patients' healthcare interests have a conflict of interest, which is unethical if not appropriately declared.
Author information
Author/s: Dickens, Bernard M (BM);
Affiliation: Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Journal and publication information
Publication Type: Journal Article; Legal Cases
Journal: Medicine and law (Med Law), published in Israel. (Language: eng)
Reference: 2009-Mar; vol 28 (issue 2) : pp 337-47
Dates: Created 2009/08/26; Completed 2009/09/29;
PMID: 19705646, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 9/29/2009, IMS Date: )
Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.
External Links for this article
(including full text providers, if available):
Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.
This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.
MeSH headings (categories)
This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.
Related articles
These are the highest related articles currently in the database:
- Can doctors place limits on their medical practices?
13 Mar 1997 - Legal duties to respect abortion choices.
30 Dec 2002 - Human rights. Indefinite articles.
25 May 1999 - Court reverses finding of discrimination in dental practice.
25 Jun 1997 - N.Y. court says dentists may not refuse patients with HIV.
30 Oct 1996 - State court finds insufficient proof that dentist discriminated.
2 Apr 1997 - HIV is a disability: court protects HIV-positive people.
29 Jun 1998 - Hospital agrees to adopt policies in wake of patient's lawsuit.
Apr 1998 - Oral arguments in Washington v. Glucksberg. No. 96-110.
30 Dec 1996 - UK psychiatrists refuse to treat the untreatable.
18 Feb 1999
Related Article Map
Legend:
- FREE Full text Article.
- Abstract only.
- Title only. More help.
See a large map of 100+ related articles.