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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |