ReviewCambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees2017
The Inevitability of Assessing Reasons in Debates about Conscientious Objection in Medicine.
Review in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guidelines for conscientious objection in Spain: a proposal involving prerequisites and protocolized procedure.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024Article
- Institutional Objection to Voluntary Assisted Dying in Victoria, Australia: An Analysis of Publicly Available Policies.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Development of the Inclination Toward Conscientious Objection Scale for Physicians.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023Article
- "I haven't had to bare my soul but now I kind of have to": describing how voluntary assisted dying conscientious objectors anticipated approaching conversations with patients in Victoria, Australia.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Understanding the Reasons Behind Healthcare Providers' Conscientious Objection to Voluntary Assisted Dying in Victoria, Australia.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Conscientious Objection in Health Care: Pinning down the Reasonability View.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2021Article
- Preventing conscientious objection in medicine from running amok: a defense of reasonable accommodation.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2019Article
- Conscientious objection to intentional killing: an argument for toleration.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article first critically reviews the major philosophical positions in the literature on conscientious objection and finds that they possess significant flaws. A substantial number of these problems stem from the fact that these views fail to assess the reasons offered by medical professionals in support of their objections. This observation is used to motivate the reasonability view, one part of which states: A practitioner who lodges a conscientious refusal must publicly state his or her objection as well as the reasoned basis for the objection and have these subjected to critical evaluation before a conscientious exemption can be granted (the reason-giving requirement). It is then argued that when defenders of the other philosophical views attempt to avoid granting an accommodation to spurious objections based on discrimination, empirically mistaken beliefs, or other unjustified biases, they are implicitly committed to the reason-giving requirement. This article concludes that based on these considerations, a reason-giving position such as the reasonability view possesses a decisive advantage in this debate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27934568What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.