Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716989›Full record

ArticleBioethics2017

Doctors Have no Right to Refuse Medical Assistance in Dying, Abortion or Contraception.

Julian Savulescu, Udo Schuklenk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Taking the Right to Die Seriously.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Development of the Inclination Toward Conscientious Objection Scale for Physicians.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Julian Savulescu
Udo Schuklenk

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104848
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an article in this journal, Christopher Cowley argues that we have 'misunderstood the special nature of medicine, and have misunderstood the motivations of the conscientious objectors'. We have not. It is Cowley who has misunderstood the role of personal values in the profession of medicine. We argue that there should be better protections for patients from doctors' personal values and there should be more severe restrictions on the right to conscientious objection, particularly in relation to assisted dying. We argue that eligible patients could be guaranteed access to medical services that are subject to conscientious objections by: (1) removing a right to conscientious objection; (2) selecting candidates into relevant medical specialities or general practice who do not have objections; (3) demonopolizing the provision of these services away from the medical profession.

Indexed as

ConsciencePhysiciansAbortion, InducedContraceptionFemaleHumansMedical AssistancePregnancyRefusal to Treatautonomyeuthanasiainterestsjusticelawprofessionalism

Identifiers

PMID27716989
PMCPMC5324650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.