Clarke’s arguments in favour of permitting conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare and setting up registries are not new, but the consequentialist basis for them and the careful attention to seemingly deontological claims from prominent consequentialists about CO are novel. Though many of the arguments are persuasive, at least among those who already accept consequentialism of the form Clarke articulates, the analysis misses an important feature of CO (and a central point in debates about it): professionalism.
Clarke is mistaken in dismissing the role of professions and, in turn, professionalism in consequentialist cases for CO. He writes, “It’s not clear why a consequentialist should fuss over…the proper conception of healthcare professionalism.”
First, in the complex arena of health, accurately assessing utility…