Registers and quotas: strengthening conscientious objection policy in healthcare

Introduction

The permissibility of conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare presents a complex balance of benefits and harms, and philosophers disagree on whether it should be permitted at all. For example, consequentialists such as Udo Schuklenk argue that healthcare professionals should never be allowed to object, a position known as the ‘incompatibility thesis’.1 Steve Clarke, however, believes that there is a positive consequentialist case for permitting CO in healthcare.2 The most important benefits he notes are that permitting CO prevents moral injury, and it means objectors do not have to leave their profession. Potential harms include denial of healthcare services, which can result in impairment, even death, and patient distress or humiliation when a request is refused, particularly in time-sensitive contexts. In Clarke’s view, a good consequentialist solution is to try to acquire the benefits of CO while avoiding its harms.

One approach is Dan Brock’s ‘conventional compromise’,…

Read the full article ›