ArticleBioethics2018
Conscientious objection, professional duty and compromise: A response to Savulescu and Schuklenk.
Article in Bioethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Should Physicians Be Permitted to Refuse Follow-Up Care to Patients Who Have Received an Organ Transplant Through Organ Trafficking?Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Article
- Conscientious objection to abortion: why it should be a specified legal right for doctors in South Korea.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Conscience-based refusal of patient care in medicine: a consequentialist analysis.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2019Article
- Preventing conscientious objection in medicine from running amok: a defense of reasonable accommodation.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2019Article
- A review and analysis of new Italian law 219/2017: 'provisions for informed consent and advance directives treatment'.BMC medical ethics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent article in this journal, Savulescu and Schuklenk defend and extend their earlier arguments against a right to medical conscientious objection in response to criticisms raised by Cowley. I argue that while it would be preferable to be less accommodating of medical conscientious than many countries currently are, Savulescu and Schuklenk's argument that conscientious objection is 'simply unprofessional' is mistaken. The professional duties of doctors should be defined in relation to the interests of patients and society, and for reasons set out in this article, these may support limited accommodation of conscientious objection on condition that it does not impede access to services. Moreover, the fact that conscientious objection appears to involve unjustifiable compromise from the objector's point of view is not a reason for society not to offer that compromise. Arguing for robust enforcement of the no-impediment condition, rather than opposing conscientious objection in principle, may be a more effective way of addressing the harms resulting from an over-permissive conscientious objection policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29171659What 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.