Understanding Conscientious Objection and the Acceptability of its Practice in Primary Care.

Anne Williams
{"title":"Understanding Conscientious Objection and the Acceptability of its Practice in Primary Care.","authors":"Anne Williams","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2155099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethically challenging or controversial medical procedures have prompted increasing requests for the exercise of conscientious objection, and caused concerns about how and when it should be practised. This paper clarifies definitions, especially with regard to discrimination, and explores the restrictions, duties, and practical limitations, in order to suggest criteria for its practice. It also argues that a conscientious refusal to treat, where there is therapeutic doubt, is a valid form of conscientious objection. An email survey sent to General Practitioners (GPs), explored the adherence to the suggested criteria, and assessed the outcomes, in terms of acceptability, impact, and difficulties experienced by the GPs, their colleagues and their patients. The results demonstrate high acceptability of conscientious objection, and better outcomes when the suggested criteria are adhered to. The GPs would support education to improve the practice of conscientious objection to a professional level, which could further improve outcomes and acceptability.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"29 2","pages":"156-180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2155099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ethically challenging or controversial medical procedures have prompted increasing requests for the exercise of conscientious objection, and caused concerns about how and when it should be practised. This paper clarifies definitions, especially with regard to discrimination, and explores the restrictions, duties, and practical limitations, in order to suggest criteria for its practice. It also argues that a conscientious refusal to treat, where there is therapeutic doubt, is a valid form of conscientious objection. An email survey sent to General Practitioners (GPs), explored the adherence to the suggested criteria, and assessed the outcomes, in terms of acceptability, impact, and difficulties experienced by the GPs, their colleagues and their patients. The results demonstrate high acceptability of conscientious objection, and better outcomes when the suggested criteria are adhered to. The GPs would support education to improve the practice of conscientious objection to a professional level, which could further improve outcomes and acceptability.

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
理解良心反对及其在初级保健实践中的可接受性。
在道德上具有挑战性或有争议的医疗程序促使越来越多的人提出出于良心拒服兵役的要求,并引起人们对应如何以及何时进行拒服兵役的关切。本文澄清了其定义,特别是关于歧视的定义,并探讨了其限制、责任和实际限制,以便为其实践提出标准。它还认为,在治疗上有疑问的情况下,出于良心拒绝治疗是一种有效的出于良心反对的形式。一项发给全科医生(gp)的电子邮件调查,探讨了对建议标准的遵守情况,并从可接受性、影响和全科医生、他们的同事和病人经历的困难等方面评估了结果。结果表明,良心反对的可接受性很高,当建议的标准被遵守时,结果会更好。全科医生将支持教育,将良心拒服兵役的做法提高到专业水平,这可以进一步改善结果和可接受性。
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
A quantitative analysis of stored frozen surplus embryos in the UK. Moral Distress and its Impact on Healthcare Workers in a European NICU. Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision-Making: Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Corporate Manslaughter. Machine learning, healthcare resource allocation, and patient consent. The Fertility Fix: the Boom in Facial-matching Algorithms for Donor Selection in Assisted Reproduction in Spain.
×
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