{"title":"Conscience, Disobedience, and Standard of Care","authors":"Stephen R. Latham","doi":"10.1002/hast.4903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>In the article “Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience,” Abram L. Brummett, Tanner Hafen, and Mark C. Navin reject what they call the “referral asymmetry” in U.S. conscientious objection law in medicine, which recognizes rights of conscientiously objecting physicians to withhold referrals for medical interventions but does not (yet) recognize rights of physicians to make referrals for medical interventions to which they are morally committed but to which their health care institutions are morally opposed. This commentary concentrates on a second asymmetry, namely, the relationship of a health care provider's referral or nonreferral to the medical standard of care. The commentary argues that this second asymmetry seems to require action more appropriately recognized as civil disobedience than conscientious provision of referral</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"54 4","pages":"10-12"},"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.4903","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
In the article “Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience,” Abram L. Brummett, Tanner Hafen, and Mark C. Navin reject what they call the “referral asymmetry” in U.S. conscientious objection law in medicine, which recognizes rights of conscientiously objecting physicians to withhold referrals for medical interventions but does not (yet) recognize rights of physicians to make referrals for medical interventions to which they are morally committed but to which their health care institutions are morally opposed. This commentary concentrates on a second asymmetry, namely, the relationship of a health care provider's referral or nonreferral to the medical standard of care. The commentary argues that this second asymmetry seems to require action more appropriately recognized as civil disobedience than conscientious provision of referral.
在 "有原则的良心规定:Abram L. Brummett、Tanner Hafen 和 Mark C. Navin 反对他们所称的美国依良心拒服兵役法中的 "转诊不对称",该法承认依良心拒服兵役的医生有权拒绝转诊医疗干预,但(尚未)承认医生有权转诊他们在道德上承诺但其医疗机构在道德上反对的医疗干预。本评论集中讨论第二个不对称问题,即医疗服务提供者转诊或不转诊与医疗标准的关系。评注认为,这第二种不对称似乎要求采取的行动更适合被视为公民不服从,而不是出于良心提供转诊。
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.