Cargando…
Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare
Settling the debate over conscientious refusal (CR) in liberal democracies requires us to develop a conception of the healthcare provider’s moral role. Because CR claims and resulting policy changes take place in specific sociopolitical contexts with unique histories and diverse polities, the method...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9753870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36520271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09502-x |
_version_ | 1784851061947760640 |
---|---|
author | Scott, David C. |
author_facet | Scott, David C. |
author_sort | Scott, David C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Settling the debate over conscientious refusal (CR) in liberal democracies requires us to develop a conception of the healthcare provider’s moral role. Because CR claims and resulting policy changes take place in specific sociopolitical contexts with unique histories and diverse polities, the method we use for deriving the healthcare norms should itself be a democratic, context-dependent inquiry. To this end, I begin by describing some prerequisites—which I call publicity conditions—for any democratic account of healthcare norms that conflict or jibe with CR. Next, drawing on Ronald Dworkin’s jurisprudence and Tom Beauchamp & James Childress’s approach to bioethical reasoning, I briefly introduce one method for generating healthcare norms that is faithful to the publicity conditions and has potential to constructively, and democratically, derive important boundaries for CR. Finally, I argue that many critics of CR fail to similarly ground their accounts of healthcare norms in healthcare professionals’ sociopolitical contexts, often relying instead on their own interpretation of a generally stateable healthcare norm. This leads to their misconstruing both the value judgments on which their own approaches rest and the public, political values that are often invoked in favor of CR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9753870 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97538702022-12-15 Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare Scott, David C. HEC Forum Article Settling the debate over conscientious refusal (CR) in liberal democracies requires us to develop a conception of the healthcare provider’s moral role. Because CR claims and resulting policy changes take place in specific sociopolitical contexts with unique histories and diverse polities, the method we use for deriving the healthcare norms should itself be a democratic, context-dependent inquiry. To this end, I begin by describing some prerequisites—which I call publicity conditions—for any democratic account of healthcare norms that conflict or jibe with CR. Next, drawing on Ronald Dworkin’s jurisprudence and Tom Beauchamp & James Childress’s approach to bioethical reasoning, I briefly introduce one method for generating healthcare norms that is faithful to the publicity conditions and has potential to constructively, and democratically, derive important boundaries for CR. Finally, I argue that many critics of CR fail to similarly ground their accounts of healthcare norms in healthcare professionals’ sociopolitical contexts, often relying instead on their own interpretation of a generally stateable healthcare norm. This leads to their misconstruing both the value judgments on which their own approaches rest and the public, political values that are often invoked in favor of CR. Springer Netherlands 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9753870/ /pubmed/36520271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09502-x Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Article Scott, David C. Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare |
title | Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare |
title_full | Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare |
title_fullStr | Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare |
title_full_unstemmed | Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare |
title_short | Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare |
title_sort | democratizing conscientious refusal in healthcare |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9753870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36520271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09502-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT scottdavidc democratizingconscientiousrefusalinhealthcare |