In:
Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, Vol. 44, No. 3 ( 2018-03), p. 206-209
Abstract:
In a recent article for this journal, Morten Magelssen argues that the right to conscientious objection in healthcare is grounded in the moral integrity of healthcare professionals, a good for both professionals and society. In this paper, I argue that there is no right to conscientious objection in healthcare, at least as Magelssen conceives of it. Magelssen’s conception of the right to conscientious objection is too expansive in nature. Although I will assume that there is a right to conscientious objection, it does not extend to objections that are purely religious in nature. i Thus, this right is considerably more restricted than Magelssen thinks. In making my case, I draw on John Rawls’s later work in arguing for the claim that conscientious objection based on purely religious considerations fails to benefit society in the appropriate way.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0306-6800
,
1473-4257
DOI:
10.1136/medethics-2017-104237
Language:
English
Publisher:
BMJ
Publication Date:
2018
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2026397-1
SSG:
0
SSG:
1
SSG:
5,1
Permalink
