ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
The Fiduciary Argument Against Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The question of when, if ever, healthcare professionals with conscientious objections should be accommodated by permitting them to refuse to provide medical interventions to which they morally object is a heated issue that has received significant attention in the medical ethics literature. While many professional medical associations have long held that such objections may be accommodated in a broad range of cases, a vocal and growing minority has been fervently arguing that the medical profession should cease accommodating conscientious objections and should rarely, if ever, permit clinicians to refrain from providing medical care merely because it conflicts with their conscience. One of the most popular arguments offered by non-accommodationists focuses on the claim that conscientious refusal is incompatible with healthcare professionals' fiduciary duty to put patients' interests ahead of their own. The aim of this paper is to show that, despite its initial plausibility, this argument is unable to withstand scrutiny. There is no fiduciary duty that is obviously incompatible with conscientious refusal that it is plausible to think healthcare practitioners actually have.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474968What 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.