There is no consequentialist ethical justification for registries of conscientious non-objectors

A number of authors have attempted to provide a consequentialist ethical justification for the accommodation of conscientious objectors.1 Steve Clarke’s article is the most recent such effort.2

Clarke essentially suggests that objectors should be accommodated because they would benefit from that accommodation, and that seems to make accommodation ethically desirable. He also acknowledges the empirical evidence demonstrating that accommodating objectors has detrimental health consequences for patients.3 For reasons not given in his article, he thinks these detrimental effects can be counteracted by creating a registry. Variations of this idea have been suggested by other contributors to this debate. Typically, they propose that conscientious objectors should register with a health authority so that patients can determine whether they will receive a particular health service.4 Clarke’s original contribution is the suggestion that all non-objectors—doctors who are willing to do the job they voluntarily signed up…

Read the full article ›