Gamble, N., & Saad, T. (2021).
Clinical Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477750921994283
Abstract
Conscientious Objection (CO) has become a highly contested topic in the bioethics literature and public policy. However, when CO is discussed, it is almost universally referred to as a single entity. Reality reveals a more nuanced picture. Healthcare professionals may object to a given action on numerous grounds. They may oppose an action because of its ends, its means, or because of factors that lay outside of both ends and means. Our paper develops a taxonomy of CO, which makes it possible to describe the refusals of healthcare professional with greater finesse. The application of this development will potentially allow for greater subtlety in public policy and academic discussions – some species of CO could be permitted while others could be prohibited.
Conclusion
The ethical analysis and framework we have presented demonstrate that conscience is intertwined with practical wisdom and is an intrinsic part of the work of healthcare professionals. The species of CO we have enumerated reveal that morality and values in healthcare are not only related to a few controversial ends, but to all ends and means in medicine, and the relationships between them.
The taxonomy we have presented will feasibly permit a more nuanced discussion of CO, where the issues surrounding and policy solutions for each species of CO can be discussed separately. Such a conversation
is an important task. After all, CO will not go away, even if specific belief systems rise or fall. CO exists
because humans have an innate awareness of the need to seek good and avoid evil, yet still arrive at disparate intellectual conclusions about what is right and wrong. Thus, if tolerant and amicable solutions
are to be developed for CO, conversations on CO in healthcare need to continue with a more integrated
understanding of practical reason and an awareness of broad involvement of conscience in medicine. We
hope our paper contributes to this end.
