Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience.

"Conscientious provision" refers to situations in which clinicians wish to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments prohibited within their (usually Catholic) health care institutions. It mirrors "conscientious objection," which refers to situations in which clinicians refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments offered within their (usually secular) health care institutions. Conscientious provision is not protected by law, but conscientious objection is. In practice, this asymmetry privileges conservative religious or moral values (usually associated with objection) over secular moral values (usually associated with provision). In this article, we first argue for a legal right to one kind of conscientious provision: referral for procedures prohibited at Catholic hospitals. We then argue that a premise in that argument-the principle of comparably trivial institutional burdens-justifies legal protections for some additional forms of conscientious provision that include, for example, writing prescriptions for contraception or medical abortions. However, this principle cannot justify legal protections for other forms of conscientious provision, for instance, the right to perform surgical abortions or gender-affirming hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals.

Conscientious Objection.

Physicians may under some circumstances decline to provide a clinical service that is within accepted medical standards due to a deeply held moral belief that to do so would be wrong. Conscience objection in medicine is legally protected, but ethically limited by physician obligations to put patient interests first. Accommodation to conscientious objections, when possible, recognizes the diverse moral perspectives and benefits for both the objectors and the profession as a whole. When these situations arise, physicians have obligations to respectfully resolve the distress of conscientious objectors while still honoring the primacy of patient care needs.

Three Arguments Against Institutional Conscientious Objection, and Why They Are (Metaphysically) Unconvincing.

The past decade has seen a burgeoning of scholarly interest in conscientious objection in healthcare. While the literature to date has focused primarily on individual healthcare practitioners who object to participation in morally controversial procedures, in this article we consider a different albeit related issue, namely, whether publicly funded healthcare institutions should be required to provide morally controversial services such as abortions, emergency contraception, voluntary sterilizations, and voluntary euthanasia. Substantive debates about institutional responsibility have remained largely at the level of first-order ethical debate over medical practices which institutions have refused to offer; in this article, we argue that more fundamental questions about the metaphysics of institutions provide a neglected avenue for understanding the basis of institutional conscientious objection. To do so, we articulate a metaphysical model of institutional conscience, and consider three well-known arguments for undermining institutional conscientious objection in light of this model. We show how our metaphysical analysis of institutions creates difficulties for justifying sanctions on institutions that conscientiously object. Thus, we argue, questions about the metaphysics of institutions are deserving of serious attention from both critics and defenders of institutional conscientious objection.

Guidelines for conscientious objection in Spain: a proposal involving prerequisites and protocolized procedure.

Healthcare professionals often face ethical conflicts and challenges related to decision-making that have necessitated consideration of the use of conscientious objection (CO). No current guidelines exist within Spain's healthcare system regarding acceptable rationales for CO, the appropriate application of CO, or practical means to support healthcare professionals who wish to become conscientious objectors. As such, a procedural framework is needed that not only assures the appropriate use of CO by healthcare professionals but also demonstrates its ethical validity, legislative compliance through protection of moral freedoms and patients' rights to receive health care. Our proposal consists of prerequisites of eligibility for CO (individual reference, specific clinical context, ethical justification, assurance of non-discrimination, professional consistency, attitude of mutual respect, assurance of patient rights and safety) and a procedural process (notification and preparation, documentation and confidentiality, evaluation of prerequisites, non-abandonment, transparency, allowance for unforeseen objection, compensatory responsibilities, access to guidance and/or consultative advice, and organizational guarantee of professional substitution). We illustrate the real-world utility of the proposed framework through a case discussion in which our guidelines are applied.

Conscientious refusal or conscientious provision: We can't have both.

Some authors argue that it is permissible for clinicians to conscientiously provide abortion services because clinicians are already allowed to conscientiously refuse to provide certain services. Call this the symmetry thesis. We argue that on either of the two main understandings of the aim of the medical profession-what we will call "pathocentric" and "interest-centric" views-conscientious refusal and conscientious provision are mutually exclusive. On pathocentric views, refusing to provide a service that takes away from a patient's health is professionally justified because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to refuse to provide that service (e.g., it does not heal, and it is contrary to the goals of medicine). However, providing that same service is not professionally justified when providing that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. Likewise, the thesis turns out false on interest-centric views. Refusing to provide a service is not professionally justified when that service helps the patient fulfill her autonomous preferences because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to provide that service (e.g., it helps her achieve her autonomous preferences, and it would be contrary to the goals of medicine to deny her that service). However, refusing to provide that same service is not professionally justified when refusing to provide that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. As a result, on either of the two most plausible views on the goals of medicine, the symmetry thesis turns out false.

HHS Issues Revised Health Worker Conscience Rule.

The aim is to balance the rights of clinicians and patients.

Conscientious objection and barriers to abortion within a specific regional context - an expert interview study.

BACKGROUND: While most countries that allow abortion on women's request also grant physicians a right to conscientious objection (CO), this has proven to constitute a potential barrier to abortion access. Conscientious objection is regarded as an understudied phenomenon the effects of which have not yet been examined in Germany. Based on expert interviews, this study aims to exemplarily reconstruct the processes of abortion in a mid-sized city in Germany, and to identify potential effects of conscientious objection. METHODS: Five semi-structured interviews with experts from all instances involved have been conducted in April 2020. The experts gave an insight into the medical care structures with regard to abortion procedures, the application and manifestations of conscientious objection in medical practice, and its impact on the care of pregnant women. A content analysis of the transcribed interviews was performed. RESULTS: Both the procedural processes and the effects of conscientious objection are reported to differ significantly between early abortions performed before the 12th week of pregnancy and late abortions performed at the second and third trimester. Conscientious objection shows structural consequences as it is experienced to further reduce the number of possible providers, especially for early abortions. On the individual level of the doctor-patient relationship, the experts confirmed the neutrality and patient-orientation of the vast majority of doctors. Still, it is especially late abortions that seem to be vulnerable to barriers imposed by conscientious objection in individual medical encounters. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that conscientious objection possibly imposes barriers to both early and late abortion provision and especially in the last procedural steps, which from an ethical point of view is especially problematic. To oblige hospitals to partake in abortion provision in Germany has the potential to prevent negative impacts of conscientious objection on women's rights on an individual as well as on a structural level.

Understanding the extent of and limitations to conscientious objection to abortion by health care practitioners: A hermeneutic study.

The United Kingdom's Abortion Act 1967 has attracted substantial controversy, which has centred not only on the regulation of abortion itself, but also on the extent to which conscientious objection should be permitted. The aim of this study was to examine a range of healthcare professionals' views on conscientious objection and identify the appropriate parameters of conscientious objection to abortion. Gadamer's hermeneutic was utilised to frame this study. We conducted semi-structured interviews in two UK locations with 18 pharmacists, 17 midwives, 12 nurses and nine doctors, encompassing a mix of conscientious objectors and non-objectors to abortion. A multi-faceted in-depth data analysis led to the development of a hermeneutic of "respecting self and others". Four major themes of "doing the job", "entrusting to others", "acknowledging institutional power" and "being selective" and 18 subthemes contributed to this overarching theme. The complexity of the responses indicates that there is little consistency within and between each profession. They show that participants who were conscientious objectors were accepted by their colleagues and accommodated without detriment to the service, and that in larger hospitals, such as those where our work was carried out, it is possible to be employed in the service areas that include abortion while still being a conscientious objector. Finally, our results indicate that, by respecting of self and others, each profession should be able to accommodate conscience-based objections where individual practitioners seek to exercise them. Conscientious objectors as well as non-objectors have something to contribute to the ongoing development of the maternity and gynaecological services as abortion is only a small part of the work of these services.

Patient-centered Engagement as a Mediator in the Associations of Healthcare Discrimination, Pain Care Denial, and Later Substance Use Among a Sample of Predominately African Americans Living with HIV.

Chronic pain is prevalent and often under-addressed among people with HIV and people who use drugs, likely compounding the stress of discrimination in healthcare, and self-medicating along with its associated overdose risk or other problematic coping. Due to challenges in treating pain and HIV in the context of substance use, collaborative, patient-centered patient-provider engagement (PCE) may be particularly important for mitigating the impact of pain on illicit drug use and promoting sustained recovery. We examined whether PCE with primary care provider (PCE-PCP) mediated the effects of pain, discrimination, and denial of prescription pain medication on later substance use for pain among a sample of 331 predominately African Americans with HIV and a drug use history in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Baseline pain level was directly associated with a higher chance of substance use for pain at 12 months (Standardized Coefficient = 0.26, p < .01). Indirect paths were observed from baseline healthcare discrimination (Standardized Coefficient = 0.05, 95% CI=[0.01, 0.13]) and pain medication denial (Standardized Coefficient = 0.06, 95% CI=[0.01, 0.14]) to a higher chance of substance use for pain at 12 months. Effects of prior discrimination and pain medication denial on later self-medication were mediated through worse PCE-PCP at 6 months. Results underscore the importance of PCE interpersonal skills and integrative care models in addressing mistreatment in healthcare and substance use in this population. An integrated approach for treating pain and substance use disorders concurrently with HIV and other comorbidities is much needed. Interventions should target individuals at multiple risks of discriminations and healthcare professionals to promote PCE.

Critics Say New State "Conscience Laws" Give Physicians Carte Blanche to Refuse Patients.

This Medical News feature discusses state laws that protect physicians who refuse to provide certain services because of religious or moral beliefs.