A growing number of states is enacting laws to protect the right of health care workers to conscientiously object to perform certain services that are morally opposed to.
Rebecca J. Cook, JD, JSD and Bernard M. Dickens, LLB, LLM, PhD, LLD
Two legal experts argue that in order for physicians to exercise their right to conscientious objection, they should explain why they are refusing to treat a patient and then refer the patient to another professional for medical treatment.
Physicians must recognize the role of their own and patients’ religious and personal values in understanding and resolving dilemmas in clinical ethics.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(5):409-415. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.5.spec1-1505.
Jody Steinauer, MD, MAS and Carolyn Sufrin, MD, MA
Legislative policies that require a physician to misrepresent the risks of abortion to patients and to show the patient an ultrasound and those that allow physicians not to provide referral for abortion create a conflict between the physician's obligations to the patient and to the law.
The AMA Code of Medical Ethics' opinions on confidential care for sexually active minors and physicians' exercise of conscience in refusal of services.
Protecting one’s moral integrity may require a conscience clause that protects positive conscience claims by permitting individuals to perform actions that are otherwise prohibited by legal or institutional rules.
Margaret Little, PhD and Anne Drapkin Lyerly, MA, MD
Society is best served by an approach to conscience that combines a progressive understanding of patients’ needs, a nuanced determination of when those needs translate into claims, and a limited role for conscientious refusal.
Qualifying conscience protections for institutions with requirements that they minimize hardship caused to the patient would prevent religious institutions from acting as a choke point on the path to services.