Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The New Bioethics on 12/08/2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2019.1651935
Accepted author manuscript, 234 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Is conscientious objection incompatible with healthcare professionalism?
AU - Neal, M.
AU - Fovargue, S.
N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in The New Bioethics on 12/08/2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2019.1651935
PY - 2019/8/12
Y1 - 2019/8/12
N2 - Is conscientious objection (CO) necessarily incompatible with the role and dutiesof a healthcare professional? An influentialminority of writers on the subject think that it is. Here, we outline the positive case for accommodating CO and examine one particular type of incompatibility claim, namely that CO is fundamentally incompatible with proper healthcare professionalism because the attitude of the conscientious objector exists in opposition to the disposition (attitudes and underlying character) that we should expect from a ‘good’ healthcare professional. We ask first whether this claim is true in principle: what is the disposition of a ‘good’ healthcare professional, and how does CO align with or contradict it?Then, we consider practical compatibility, acknowledging the need to identifyappropriate limits on the exercise of CO and considering what those limitsmight be. We conclude that CO is notfundamentally incompatible – either in principle or in practice – with good healthcare professionalism.
AB - Is conscientious objection (CO) necessarily incompatible with the role and dutiesof a healthcare professional? An influentialminority of writers on the subject think that it is. Here, we outline the positive case for accommodating CO and examine one particular type of incompatibility claim, namely that CO is fundamentally incompatible with proper healthcare professionalism because the attitude of the conscientious objector exists in opposition to the disposition (attitudes and underlying character) that we should expect from a ‘good’ healthcare professional. We ask first whether this claim is true in principle: what is the disposition of a ‘good’ healthcare professional, and how does CO align with or contradict it?Then, we consider practical compatibility, acknowledging the need to identifyappropriate limits on the exercise of CO and considering what those limitsmight be. We conclude that CO is notfundamentally incompatible – either in principle or in practice – with good healthcare professionalism.
KW - Conscientious objection
KW - healthcare
KW - professionalism
KW - incompatibility thesis
KW - healthcare ethics
U2 - 10.1080/20502877.2019.1651935
DO - 10.1080/20502877.2019.1651935
M3 - Journal article
JO - The New Bioethics
JF - The New Bioethics
SN - 2050-2877
ER -