RESUMEN
Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine is where a healthcare professional (HCP) firmly opposes, with an expression of reasoned disapproval, a legally available procedure or treatment that is proscribed by one's conscience. While there remains controversy regarding whether conscientious objection should be a part of medicine, even among those who support CO state that if the HCP does not provide the requested service such as abortion, physician assisted suicide, etc., there is an obligation on the part of the objecting HCP to refer to someone who will provide it. However, referral makes the referring HCP complicit in the act the referrer believes to be immoral since the referrer has a duty to know that the HCP who will accept the patient is not only able to do the procedure but is competent in its performance as well. The referrer thus facilitates the process. Since one has a moral obligation to limit complicity with immoral actions when it cannot be avoided, the alternative is to allow the patient to transfer care to another when the patient has made the autonomous decision to reject the advice of the HCP.
RESUMEN
Catholic healthcare institutions, physicians, and midwives routinely employ testing for Down syndrome as a part of prenatal care. This testing is an essential part of eugenic abortion and often leads to it. Catholic teaching clearly forbids such testing when undertaken with abortive intent if the baby has Down syndrome or other abnormalities. This article discusses (1) the evolution of prenatal genetic testing and abortion, (2) how this testing may involve complicity in eugenic abortion, and (3) offers proposals to avoid and end Catholic healthcare's cooperation with this evil. SUMMARY: This article discusses why prenatal genetic testing as practiced in many Catholic healthcare institutions is ethically problematic and then proposes solutions.
RESUMEN
Abstract The debate concerning the so-called U.S.Health and Human Services (HHS) Contraception Mandatehas been adequately framed, in the academic field, within the traditional ethical doctrine oncooperation with evil. This principle will allow us to conclude whether employers may ethically comply with the onerous existing law or not. The discussion has been quite heated, because the practical conclusions authors have reached vary widely, depending on which interpretation of the theory they rely on. In this paper, some of these explanations are addressed and analyzed from the standpoint of the Thomistic theory of action, which is now the most common point of view. This work concludes that, although theContraception Mandatewill most likely be repealed by the current U.S. administration, as things once stood, compliance with it may have been ethically licit in some cases.
Resumen El debate académico sobre el llamadoU.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Contraception Mandatese ha enmarcado, adecuadamente, en el contexto de la doctrina clásica acerca de lacooperación al mal. Este principio ayuda a discernir si las empresas y los empleadores estadounidenses deberían o no, éticamente, obedecer a tal ley injustamente impuesta. La discusión ha sido muy acalorada, porque las conclusiones a las que han llegado los distintos autores son muy variadas, en función de cuál ha sido la interpretación de esta doctrina en cada caso. En el presente artículo hemos tratado de examinar y analizar alguno de estos intentos de explicación, desde la perspectiva de la teoría tomista de la acción -que hoy en día es el punto de vista más común-. El trabajo concluye que, aunque elMandateprobablemente vaya a ser derogado por el actual gobierno de los Estados Unidos, tal como estaban las cosas, la obediencia de esta ley podría haber sido éticamente lícita en algunos casos.
Resumo O debate acadêmico sobre o chamado Mandato de Contracepção, do U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS), foi enquadrado, adequadamente, no contexto da doutrina clássica sobre a cooperação com o mal. Esse princípio ajuda a discernir se as empresas e os empregadores norte-americanos deveriam ou não, eticamente, obedecer a tal lei imposta injustamente. A discussão tem sido muito acalorada porque as conclusões a que diferentes autores chegaram são muito variadas, em função da interpretação dessa doutrina em cada caso. No presente artigo, buscamos examinar e analisar algumas dessas tentativas de explicação, a partir da perspectiva da Teoria Tomista da Ação - que, atualmente, é o ponto de vista mais comum. O trabalho conclui que, ainda que o mandato seja provavelmente revogado pelo atual governo dos Estados Unidos, assim como estavam as coisas, a obediência a essa lei poderia ter sido eticamente lícita em alguns casos.
