Cargando…

Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders

This article examines one kind of conscientious refusal: the refusal of healthcare professionals to treat sexual dysfunction in individuals with a history of sexual offending. According to what I call the orthodoxy, such refusal is invariably impermissible, whereas at least one other kind of conscie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: DOUGLAS, THOMAS
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5197922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27934575
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116000712
_version_ 1782488789903474688
author DOUGLAS, THOMAS
author_facet DOUGLAS, THOMAS
author_sort DOUGLAS, THOMAS
collection PubMed
description This article examines one kind of conscientious refusal: the refusal of healthcare professionals to treat sexual dysfunction in individuals with a history of sexual offending. According to what I call the orthodoxy, such refusal is invariably impermissible, whereas at least one other kind of conscientious refusal—refusal to offer abortion services—is not. I seek to put pressure on the orthodoxy by (1) motivating the view that either both kinds of conscientious refusal are permissible or neither is, and (2) critiquing two attempts to buttress it.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5197922
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51979222017-01-05 Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders DOUGLAS, THOMAS Camb Q Healthc Ethics Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives This article examines one kind of conscientious refusal: the refusal of healthcare professionals to treat sexual dysfunction in individuals with a history of sexual offending. According to what I call the orthodoxy, such refusal is invariably impermissible, whereas at least one other kind of conscientious refusal—refusal to offer abortion services—is not. I seek to put pressure on the orthodoxy by (1) motivating the view that either both kinds of conscientious refusal are permissible or neither is, and (2) critiquing two attempts to buttress it. Cambridge University Press 2017-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5197922/ /pubmed/27934575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116000712 Text en © Cambridge University Press 2016 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives
DOUGLAS, THOMAS
Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders
title Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders
title_full Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders
title_fullStr Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders
title_full_unstemmed Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders
title_short Refusing to Treat Sexual Dysfunction in Sex Offenders
title_sort refusing to treat sexual dysfunction in sex offenders
topic Special Section: Conscientious Objection in Healthcare: Problems and Perspectives
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5197922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27934575
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116000712
work_keys_str_mv AT douglasthomas refusingtotreatsexualdysfunctioninsexoffenders