Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39429756›Full record

ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2024

Positive and Negative Rights of Conscience: Balancing When Rights Conflict.

Cynthia Jones-Nosacek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Cynthia Jones-NosacekIndependent Researcher, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5129-8626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine has been seen as a negative right, the right to be free from the intervention of others, so as not to be coerced into doing a medical intervention that the objector thinks is immoral. Arguments are now becoming more common calling for protection for the positive right of conscience, the right to perform interventions by the healthcare provider (HCP) even when it goes against the policy of the healthcare institution (HCI) or the law. Rights create obligations. While negative rights only obligate that others not interfere, positive rights create the obligation of others to support the activity. Positive rights of conscience of the HCP impinge on the negative rights of the HCI. They require that the HCI implicitly support the activity of the HCP, which is formal cooperation and can never be justified without the loss of integrity on the part of the HCI. This article will argue, outside of the limitations of CO such as providing care in an emergency when there is no other option, that respect for the negative right of conscience of the HCI outweighs the positive right of the HCP.

Indexed as

AbortionbioethicsCatholic identity in health careconscience in medicinecooperation with evilethicsprinciples of cooperationrights of conscience

Identifiers

PMID39429756
PMCPMC11489914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.