堕胎和良心反对:新的战场

A. O'Rourke, L. Crespigny, A. Pyman
{"title":"堕胎和良心反对:新的战场","authors":"A. O'Rourke, L. Crespigny, A. Pyman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2262139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the vexed issue of conscientious objection and abortion. It begins by outlining the increasing claims to conscientious objection invoked by physicians in reproductive health services. After an examination of developments overseas, the paper turns to the acrimonious debate in Victoria concerning the conscience clause and the 'obligation to refer' contained in the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) ('ALRA'). This paper questions the interpretation by the Catholic Church that the clause breaches its right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. We argue that the unregulated use of conscientious objection impedes women's rights to access safe lawful medical procedures. As such, we contend that a physician's withdrawal from patient care on the basis of conscience must be limited to certain circumstances. The paper then examines international and national guidelines, international treaties and recommendations of treaty monitoring bodies, laws in other jurisdictions, and trends in case law. The purpose of this examination is to show that the conscientious objection clause and the 'obligation to refer' in ALRA is consistent with international practice and laws in other jurisdictions. Finally, the paper turns to the problematic interpretation of conscience and moral responsibility in the context of abortion. We believe that narrow interpretations of conscience must be challenged, in order to incorporate patients' rights to include the choice of abortion and other lawful treatments according to their conscience. We conclude that the conscientious objection provisions in ALRA have achieved the right balance and that there is no justifiable legal reason upon which opponents can challenge the law.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"120 1","pages":"87-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abortion and Conscientious Objection: The New Battleground\",\"authors\":\"A. O'Rourke, L. Crespigny, A. Pyman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2262139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines the vexed issue of conscientious objection and abortion. It begins by outlining the increasing claims to conscientious objection invoked by physicians in reproductive health services. After an examination of developments overseas, the paper turns to the acrimonious debate in Victoria concerning the conscience clause and the 'obligation to refer' contained in the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) ('ALRA'). This paper questions the interpretation by the Catholic Church that the clause breaches its right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. We argue that the unregulated use of conscientious objection impedes women's rights to access safe lawful medical procedures. As such, we contend that a physician's withdrawal from patient care on the basis of conscience must be limited to certain circumstances. The paper then examines international and national guidelines, international treaties and recommendations of treaty monitoring bodies, laws in other jurisdictions, and trends in case law. The purpose of this examination is to show that the conscientious objection clause and the 'obligation to refer' in ALRA is consistent with international practice and laws in other jurisdictions. Finally, the paper turns to the problematic interpretation of conscience and moral responsibility in the context of abortion. We believe that narrow interpretations of conscience must be challenged, in order to incorporate patients' rights to include the choice of abortion and other lawful treatments according to their conscience. We conclude that the conscientious objection provisions in ALRA have achieved the right balance and that there is no justifiable legal reason upon which opponents can challenge the law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"87-119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2262139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2262139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本文探讨了良心拒服兵役和堕胎这一棘手的问题。报告首先概述了医生在生殖健康服务中援引的越来越多的出于良心拒服兵役的主张。在考察了海外的发展之后,本文转向维多利亚州关于良心条款和《2008年堕胎法改革法》(维多利亚州)(“ALRA”)中所载的“提及义务”的激烈辩论。本文质疑天主教会的解释,即该条款侵犯了其信仰自由和宗教自由的权利。我们认为,不受管制地使用良心拒服兵役妨碍了妇女获得安全合法医疗程序的权利。因此,我们认为,医生基于良心而退出对病人的护理必须限制在某些情况下。然后,本文审查了国际和国家准则、国际条约和条约监督机构的建议、其他司法管辖区的法律以及判例法的趋势。这一审查的目的是为了表明ALRA中的良心拒服兵役条款和“提交义务”与国际惯例和其他司法管辖区的法律是一致的。最后,本文转向堕胎背景下良心和道德责任的问题解释。我们认为,必须挑战对良心的狭隘解释,以便纳入病人的权利,包括根据他们的良心选择堕胎和其他合法治疗。我们的结论是,ALRA中的良心拒服兵役条款达到了适当的平衡,反对者没有正当的法律理由可以质疑法律。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Abortion and Conscientious Objection: The New Battleground
This paper examines the vexed issue of conscientious objection and abortion. It begins by outlining the increasing claims to conscientious objection invoked by physicians in reproductive health services. After an examination of developments overseas, the paper turns to the acrimonious debate in Victoria concerning the conscience clause and the 'obligation to refer' contained in the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Vic) ('ALRA'). This paper questions the interpretation by the Catholic Church that the clause breaches its right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. We argue that the unregulated use of conscientious objection impedes women's rights to access safe lawful medical procedures. As such, we contend that a physician's withdrawal from patient care on the basis of conscience must be limited to certain circumstances. The paper then examines international and national guidelines, international treaties and recommendations of treaty monitoring bodies, laws in other jurisdictions, and trends in case law. The purpose of this examination is to show that the conscientious objection clause and the 'obligation to refer' in ALRA is consistent with international practice and laws in other jurisdictions. Finally, the paper turns to the problematic interpretation of conscience and moral responsibility in the context of abortion. We believe that narrow interpretations of conscience must be challenged, in order to incorporate patients' rights to include the choice of abortion and other lawful treatments according to their conscience. We conclude that the conscientious objection provisions in ALRA have achieved the right balance and that there is no justifiable legal reason upon which opponents can challenge the law.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Section 32(1) of the Victorian Charter: strained constructions and legislative intention Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance) Is the Wisdom of a Person's Decision Relevant to Their Capacity to Make That Decision? Not Black and White?: Disciplinary Regulation of Doctors Convicted of Child Pornography Offences in Australia Reconceptualising the Law of the Dead by Expanding the Interests of the Living
×
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