Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Conscientious Objection or an Internal Morality of Medicine?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who refuse on grounds of conscience to participate in certain legal, expected, and standard practices have been accused of unprofessionally introducing their personal views into medicine. My first response is that they often are not engaging in conscientious objection because that involves invoking convictions external to those of the medical community. I contend that medicine, properly construed, is pathocentric, and so refusing to induce a pathology via abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc., is actually being loyal to the internal morality of medicine. My second response is that even if such refusals are best considered conscientious objection, there is still no personal hijacking of medicine. Doctors refusing to induce pathologies need not refuse qua Christian, but can do so qua doctor. A pathocentric account of medicine provides a principled way of distinguishing conscientious objection from religious, idiosyncratic, and bigoted refusals. Patients' refused pathology-inducing procedures are not medically harmed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)104-121
Number of pages18
JournalChristian Bioethics
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2021

Keywords

  • Boorse
  • conscientious objection
  • pathocentric medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Conscientious Objection or an Internal Morality of Medicine?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this