Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-15 DOI:10.1007/s10730-022-09502-x
David C Scott
{"title":"Democratizing Conscientious Refusal in Healthcare.","authors":"David C Scott","doi":"10.1007/s10730-022-09502-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Settling the debate over conscientious refusal (CR) in liberal democracies requires us to develop a conception of the healthcare provider's moral role. Because CR claims and resulting policy changes take place in specific sociopolitical contexts with unique histories and diverse polities, the method we use for deriving the healthcare norms should itself be a democratic, context-dependent inquiry. To this end, I begin by describing some prerequisites-which I call publicity conditions-for any democratic account of healthcare norms that conflict or jibe with CR. Next, drawing on Ronald Dworkin's jurisprudence and Tom Beauchamp & James Childress's approach to bioethical reasoning, I briefly introduce one method for generating healthcare norms that is faithful to the publicity conditions and has potential to constructively, and democratically, derive important boundaries for CR. Finally, I argue that many critics of CR fail to similarly ground their accounts of healthcare norms in healthcare professionals' sociopolitical contexts, often relying instead on their own interpretation of a generally stateable healthcare norm. This leads to their misconstruing both the value judgments on which their own approaches rest and the public, political values that are often invoked in favor of CR.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9753870/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09502-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Settling the debate over conscientious refusal (CR) in liberal democracies requires us to develop a conception of the healthcare provider's moral role. Because CR claims and resulting policy changes take place in specific sociopolitical contexts with unique histories and diverse polities, the method we use for deriving the healthcare norms should itself be a democratic, context-dependent inquiry. To this end, I begin by describing some prerequisites-which I call publicity conditions-for any democratic account of healthcare norms that conflict or jibe with CR. Next, drawing on Ronald Dworkin's jurisprudence and Tom Beauchamp & James Childress's approach to bioethical reasoning, I briefly introduce one method for generating healthcare norms that is faithful to the publicity conditions and has potential to constructively, and democratically, derive important boundaries for CR. Finally, I argue that many critics of CR fail to similarly ground their accounts of healthcare norms in healthcare professionals' sociopolitical contexts, often relying instead on their own interpretation of a generally stateable healthcare norm. This leads to their misconstruing both the value judgments on which their own approaches rest and the public, political values that are often invoked in favor of CR.

医疗保健领域良心拒绝的民主化。
要解决自由民主国家中关于出于良心拒绝(CR)的争论,我们需要对医疗服务提供者的道德角色形成一个概念。由于出于良心拒服兵役的主张以及由此引发的政策变化都发生在特定的社会政治背景下,具有独特的历史和不同的政体,因此我们用来推导医疗保健规范的方法本身就应该是一种民主的、依赖于背景的探究。为此,我首先描述了一些先决条件--我称之为公共性条件--用于对与 CR 冲突或相近的医疗保健规范进行民主解释。接下来,我借鉴罗纳德-德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)的法理学以及汤姆-博尚普(Tom Beauchamp)和詹姆斯-柴尔德里斯(James Childress)的生物伦理推理方法,简要介绍了一种生成医疗规范的方法,这种方法忠实于宣传条件,并有可能建设性地、民主地为公约制定重要的界限。最后,我认为,许多批评 CR 的人未能同样将他们对医疗保健规范的描述建立在医疗保健专业人员的社会政治背景之上,而往往依赖于他们自己对一般可陈述的医疗保健规范的解释。这就导致他们既误解了自己的方法所依据的价值判断,也误解了支持 CR 的公共政治价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信