Journal article
Conscientious objection in healthcare: How much discretionary space best supports good medicine?
- Abstract:
- Daniel Sulmasy has recently argued that good medicine depends on physicians having a wide discretionary space in which they can act on their consciences. The only constraints Sulmasy believes we should place on physicians’ discretionary space are those defined by a form of tolerance he derives from Locke, whereby people can publicly act in accordance with their personal religious and moral beliefs as long as their actions are not destructive to society. Sulmasy also claims that those who would reject physicians’ right to conscientious objection eliminate discretionary space, thus undermining good medicine and unnecessarily limiting religious freedom. I argue that, although Sulmasy is correct that some discretionary space is necessary for good medicine, he is wrong in thinking that proscribing conscientious objection entails eliminating discretionary space. I illustrate this using Julian Savulescu and Udo Schuklenk’s system for restricting conscientious objections as a counter‐example. I then argue that a narrow discretionary space constrained by professional ideals will promote good medicine better than Sulmasy’s wider discretionary space constrained by his conception of tolerance. Sulmasy’s version of discretionary space would have us tolerate actions that are at odds with aspects of good medicine, including aspects that Sulmasy himself explicitly values, such as fiduciary duty. Therefore, if we want the degree of religious freedom in the public sphere that Sulmasy favours then we must decide whether it is worth the cost to the healthcare system.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 441.6KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1111/bioe.12477
Authors
- Publisher:
- Wiley
- Journal:
- Bioethics More from this journal
- Volume:
- 33
- Issue:
- 1
- Pages:
- 154-161
- Publication date:
- 2018-07-16
- Acceptance date:
- 2018-05-15
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1467-8519
- ISSN:
-
0269-9702
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:889552
- UUID:
-
uuid:e62be644-e4cb-457b-aa63-0fd2a9d098ab
- Local pid:
-
pubs:889552
- Source identifiers:
-
889552
- Deposit date:
-
2018-07-20
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Wiley
- Copyright date:
- 2018
- Rights statement:
- © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
- Notes:
- This is the accepted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available online from Wiley at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12477
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record