限制妇产科医生的良心权。

IF 0.5 4区医学 Q3 LAW Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01

{"title":"限制妇产科医生的良心权。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Committee Opinion in November 2007 titled \"The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine.\" This document, claiming to speak on behalf of the entire profession of Obstetrics and Gynecology, proposed that conscience rights of healthcare professionals have limits with regard to certain aspects of patient care. Despite calls for revision from many within the profession, this document was reaffirmed in 2016, unchanged. This document provides a detailed analysis of the ethical flaws in ACOG Committee Opinion 385.","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limiting Conscience Rights in Obstetrics and Gynecology.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Committee Opinion in November 2007 titled \\\"The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine.\\\" This document, claiming to speak on behalf of the entire profession of Obstetrics and Gynecology, proposed that conscience rights of healthcare professionals have limits with regard to certain aspects of patient care. Despite calls for revision from many within the profession, this document was reaffirmed in 2016, unchanged. This document provides a detailed analysis of the ethical flaws in ACOG Committee Opinion 385.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Issues in Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Issues in Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

美国妇产科医师学会（ACOG）于 2007 年 11 月发布了一份题为 "生殖医学中良心拒绝的限度 "的委员会意见书。这份自称代表整个妇产科专业的文件提出，医护人员的良心权利在病人护理的某些方面是有限制的。尽管许多业内人士呼吁对该文件进行修订，但 2016 年该文件还是得到了重申，未作任何改动。本文件详细分析了 ACOG 委员会第 385 号意见中的伦理缺陷。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Limiting Conscience Rights in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Committee Opinion in November 2007 titled "The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine." This document, claiming to speak on behalf of the entire profession of Obstetrics and Gynecology, proposed that conscience rights of healthcare professionals have limits with regard to certain aspects of patient care. Despite calls for revision from many within the profession, this document was reaffirmed in 2016, unchanged. This document provides a detailed analysis of the ethical flaws in ACOG Committee Opinion 385.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Issues in Law & Medicine Medicine-Health Policy

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Issues in Law & Medicine is a peer reviewed professional journal published semiannually. Founded in 1985, ILM is co-sponsored by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. and the Watson Bowes Research Institute. Issues is devoted to providing technical and informational assistance to attorneys, health care professionals, educators and administrators on legal, medical, and ethical issues arising from health care decisions. Its subscribers include law libraries, medical libraries, university libraries, court libraries, attorneys, physicians, university professors and other scholars, primarily in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.