ArticleBMJ global health2024
Conscientious objection: a global health perspective.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nurses' Experiences and Perspectives of Conscientious Objection in Practice: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.