Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1002/hast.4902
Abram L. Brummett, Tanner Hafen, Mark C. Navin
{"title":"Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience","authors":"Abram L. Brummett,&nbsp;Tanner Hafen,&nbsp;Mark C. Navin","doi":"10.1002/hast.4902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>“Conscientious provision” refers to situations in which clinicians wish to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments prohibited within their (usually Catholic) health care institutions. It mirrors “conscientious objection,” which refers to situations in which clinicians refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments offered within their (usually secular) health care institutions. Conscientious provision is not protected by law, but conscientious objection is. In practice, this asymmetry privileges conservative religious or moral values (usually associated with objection) over secular moral values (usually associated with provision). In this article, we first argue for a legal right to one kind of conscientious provision: referral for procedures prohibited at Catholic hospitals. We then argue that a premise in that argument—the</i> principle of comparably trivial institutional burdens—<i>justifies legal protections for some additional forms of conscientious provision that include, for example, writing prescriptions for contraception or medical abortions. However, this principle cannot justify legal protections for other forms of conscientious provision, for instance, the right to perform surgical abortions or gender-affirming hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4902","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Conscientious provision” refers to situations in which clinicians wish to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments prohibited within their (usually Catholic) health care institutions. It mirrors “conscientious objection,” which refers to situations in which clinicians refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments offered within their (usually secular) health care institutions. Conscientious provision is not protected by law, but conscientious objection is. In practice, this asymmetry privileges conservative religious or moral values (usually associated with objection) over secular moral values (usually associated with provision). In this article, we first argue for a legal right to one kind of conscientious provision: referral for procedures prohibited at Catholic hospitals. We then argue that a premise in that argument—the principle of comparably trivial institutional burdens—justifies legal protections for some additional forms of conscientious provision that include, for example, writing prescriptions for contraception or medical abortions. However, this principle cannot justify legal protections for other forms of conscientious provision, for instance, the right to perform surgical abortions or gender-affirming hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有原则的良心规定:转介对称性及其对保护世俗良知的影响。
"出于良心提供 "是指临床医生希望提供其(通常是天主教)医疗机构禁止的合法和专业上认可的治疗。它与 "出于良心拒绝 "相对应,后者指的是临床医生拒绝提供其(通常是世俗的)医疗机构所提供的合法的、专业上被接受的治疗的情况。出于良心提供治疗不受法律保护,而出于良心拒绝治疗则受法律保护。在实践中,这种不对称使保守的宗教或道德价值观(通常与反对有关)优先于世俗的道德价值观(通常与提供有关)。在本文中,我们首先论证了一种出于良心提供服务的合法权利:为天主教医院禁止的程序提供转诊服务。然后,我们论证了这一论证中的一个前提--可比微不足道的机构负担原则--可以为其他一些形式的出于良心提供服务提供法律保护,例如,为避孕或医疗堕胎开处方。然而,这一原则并不能证明对其他形式的出于良心提供的法律保护是合理的,例如,在天主教医院实施手术堕胎或性别确认子宫切除术的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Strategic Ethics: Physician Associations and Their Roles in Pursuing Racial Equity. The Bioethicist as Healer. Gender and Sport In Defense of Normothermic Regional Perfusion Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1