The Problem of "Core Moral Beliefs" as the Ground of Conscientious Objection.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-25 DOI:10.1007/s10730-020-09425-5
Jeffrey Byrnes
{"title":"The Problem of \"Core Moral Beliefs\" as the Ground of Conscientious Objection.","authors":"Jeffrey Byrnes","doi":"10.1007/s10730-020-09425-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mark Wicclair's defense of conscientious objection is grounded in an effort to respect the core moral beliefs of health care providers. While such a theoretical schema has merit, this paper argues that core moral beliefs should not serve as the basis of conscientious objection in health care because we, as a community, lack reliable access to a person's core moral beliefs and because individuals are prone to be confused about the scope and extent of their core moral beliefs. Furthermore, a person's confusion over their core moral beliefs is likely to be exacerbated when they lack time to investigate those beliefs and are under heightened external pressure to do so-both conditions frequently encountered by health care providers. Finally, the paper considers whether grounding conscientious objection in core moral beliefs might have the unintended consequence of further entrenching the practical problems that the move is aiming to solve.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":"33 3","pages":"291-305"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10730-020-09425-5","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09425-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Mark Wicclair's defense of conscientious objection is grounded in an effort to respect the core moral beliefs of health care providers. While such a theoretical schema has merit, this paper argues that core moral beliefs should not serve as the basis of conscientious objection in health care because we, as a community, lack reliable access to a person's core moral beliefs and because individuals are prone to be confused about the scope and extent of their core moral beliefs. Furthermore, a person's confusion over their core moral beliefs is likely to be exacerbated when they lack time to investigate those beliefs and are under heightened external pressure to do so-both conditions frequently encountered by health care providers. Finally, the paper considers whether grounding conscientious objection in core moral beliefs might have the unintended consequence of further entrenching the practical problems that the move is aiming to solve.

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
“核心道德信仰”作为良心拒服兵役理由的问题。
马克·维克莱尔对良心拒服兵役的辩护是基于尊重医疗服务提供者的核心道德信仰。虽然这样的理论模式有其优点,但本文认为,核心道德信念不应作为医疗保健中良心反对的基础,因为我们作为一个社区,缺乏对一个人的核心道德信念的可靠访问,因为个人容易对其核心道德信念的范围和程度感到困惑。此外,当一个人没有时间去调查他们的核心道德信仰时,他们对这些信仰的困惑很可能会加剧,并且在更高的外部压力下这样做——这两种情况都是卫生保健提供者经常遇到的。最后,本文考虑将良心反对根植于核心道德信仰是否会产生意想不到的后果,即进一步巩固该举措旨在解决的实际问题。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Medical-Legal Partnerships and Prevention: Caring for Unrepresented Patients Through Early Identification and Intervention. Organizational Ethics in Healthcare: A National Survey. Non-Psychiatric Treatment Refusal in Patients with Depression: How Should Surrogate Decision-Makers Represent the Patient's Authentic Wishes? What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project. "Follow the Science" in COVID-19 Policy: A Scoping Review.
×
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