Journal article icon

Journal article

Conscientious refusal or conscientious provision: we can't have both

Abstract:
Some authors argue that it is permissible for clinicians to conscientiously provide abortion services because clinicians are already allowed to conscientiously refuse to provide certain services. Call this the symmetry thesis. We argue that on either of the two main understandings of the aim of the medical profession—what we will call “pathocentric” and “interest-centric” views—conscientious refusal and conscientious provision are mutually exclusive. On pathocentric views, refusing to provide a service that takes away from a patient's health is professionally justified because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to refuse to provide that service (e.g., it does not heal, and it is contrary to the goals of medicine). However, providing that same service is not professionally justified when providing that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. Likewise, the thesis turns out false on interest-centric views. Refusing to provide a service is not professionally justified when that service helps the patient fulfill her autonomous preferences because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to provide that service (e.g., it helps her achieve her autonomous preferences, and it would be contrary to the goals of medicine to deny her that service). However, refusing to provide that same service is not professionally justified when refusing to provide that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. As a result, on either of the two most plausible views on the goals of medicine, the symmetry thesis turns out false.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Publisher copy:
10.1111/bioe.13285

Authors

More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
HUMS
Department:
Philosophy Faculty
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0003-1678-1166
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
HUMS
Department:
Philosophy Faculty
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-5163-3017



Publisher:
Wiley
Journal:
Bioethics More from this journal
Volume:
38
Issue:
5
Pages:
445-451
Publication date:
2024-03-22
Acceptance date:
2024-02-21
DOI:
EISSN:
1467-8519
ISSN:
0269-9702


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1634998
Local pid:
pubs:1634998
Deposit date:
2024-02-23
ARK identifier:

Terms of use


Views and Downloads

Views and downloads will return soon






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP