Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40340961›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2025

Origin of "Conscientious Objection" in Health Care: How Care Denials Became Enshrined into Law Because of Abortion.

Christian Fiala, Joyce Arthur, Amelia Martzke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Christian FialaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SE, Sweden.
Joyce ArthurIndependent Scholar, Vancouver, CA, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0344-4478
Amelia MartzkeUniversity of British Columbia, Faculty of Medicine (MS1), Kelowna, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The United Kingdom was the first country to legalize the refusal to provide health care in the name of "conscientious objection", allowing doctors to refuse to provide abortions based on personal or religious beliefs.A historical review into the origins and motivation behind the "conscientious objection" clause in the 1967 Abortion Act found that Parliamentarians and the medical profession wanted to preserve doctors' authority over patients, protect objecting doctors from liability, and appease religious anti-abortion beliefs.These factors point to an unprincipled basis for the introduction of "conscientious objection" into healthcare, which ultimately came at the expense of patients' rights and health. The "conscience clause" also represented a negation of basic ethical directives in medical practice including patient autonomy and physicians' fiduciary duty to patients. The term "conscientious objection"- borrowed from the military but misapplied to healthcare - helped mask the practice as a moral "right" of doctors, even while it disregarded patients' health and dignity.Refusing to provide treatment on the basis of "conscience" is harmful and discriminatory, and should be phased out gradually using disincentives and other measures to encourage objectors to choose other fields.

Indexed as

abortionbelief-based care denialconscientious objectionconscientious objectorsreproductive healthcare

Identifiers

PMID40340961
PMCPMC12179533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.