Refusing to treat sexual dysfunction in sex offenders

Journal article

This paper examines one kind of conscientious refusal: the refusal of healthcare professionals to treat sexual dysfunction in individuals with a history of sexual offending. According to what I call the Orthodoxy, such refusal is invariably impermissible, whereas at least one other kind of conscientious refusal—refusal to offer abortion services—is not. I seek to put pressure on the Orthodoxy by (i) motivating the view that either both kinds of conscientious refusal are permissible or neither is, and (ii) critiquing two attempts to buttress it.

Authors: Douglas, T

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Journal: Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
• Volume: 26
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 143-158
• Publication date: 2016-12-09
• DOI: 10.1017/S0963180116000712
• EISSN: 1469-2147
• ISSN: 0963-1801
• Keywords: statistical discrimination; sexual dysfunction; sex offenders; testosterone therapy; conscientious objection; agent-relativity; treatment refusal; indirect discrimination; conscientious refusal; complicity; discrimination