Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39732477›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2024

Conscientious objection: a global health perspective.

Karel-Bart Celie, Xavier Symons, Makayla Kochheiser, Ruben Ayala, Kokila Lakhoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Karel-Bart CelieDivision of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, USC Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA celie.md.mst@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9630-1988
Xavier SymonsPlunkett Centre for Ethics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9495-4395
Makayla KochheiserWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2480-2614
Ruben AyalaDepartment of Policy and Advocacy, Operation Smile, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
Kokila LakhooGlobal Bioethics Collaborative, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1840-708X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conscientious objection is a critical topic that has been sparsely discussed from a global health perspective, despite its special relevance to our inherently diverse field. In this Analysis paper, we argue that blanket prohibitions of a specific type of non-discriminatory conscientious objection are unjustified in the global health context. We begin both by introducing a nuanced account of conscience that is grounded in moral psychology and by providing an overview of discriminatory and non-discriminatory forms of objection. Next, we point to the frequently neglected but ubiquitous presence of moral uncertainty, which entails a need for epistemic humility-that is, an attitude that acknowledges the possibility one might be wrong. We build two arguments on moral uncertainty. First, if epistemic humility is necessary when dealing with values in theory (as appears to be the consensus in bioethics), then it will be even more necessary when these values are applied in the real world. Second, the emergence of global health from its colonial past requires special awareness of, and resistance to, moral imperialism. Absolutist attitudes towards disagreement are thus incompatible with global health's dual aims of reducing inequity and emerging from colonialism. Indeed, the possibility of global bioethics (which balances respect for plurality with the goal of collective moral progress) hinges on appropriately acknowledging moral uncertainty when faced with inevitable disagreement. This is incompatible with blanket prohibitions of conscientious objection. As a brief final note, we distinguish conscientious objection from the problem of equitable access to care. We note that conflating the two may actually lead to a less equitable picture on the whole. We conclude by recommending that international consensus documents, such as the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, be amended to include nuanced guidelines regarding conscientious objection that can then be used as a template by regional and national policymaking bodies.

Indexed as

Global HealthConscienceConscientious Refusal to TreatHumansMoralsGlobal HealthHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID39732477
PMCPMC11683958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.