Andrea N Frolic, Winifred Badaiki, Marta Simpson-Tirone
{"title":"Building Moral Community in an Age of Polarization: A Model for Reconciling Rights of Conscience in Healthcare Organizations.","authors":"Andrea N Frolic, Winifred Badaiki, Marta Simpson-Tirone","doi":"10.1007/s11673-026-10609-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Responding to conscientious objection and participation declarations to various morally contentious medical services requires a careful, inclusive, and comprehensive approach in reconciling the right of conscience of involved parties. In this paper, we make a case that the traditional discourse of whether or not to accommodate conscience-based requests does not adequately support complex, team-based healthcare systems in addressing emerging areas of moral controversy in medicine, particularly in this era of polarization. We describe how key parties in our organization developed an inclusive and comprehensive approach to reconciling rights of conscience in the context of the introduction of a morally contentious and divisive medical practice. This approach prioritized the building of a moral community, a recognition of moral diversity, a values-based approach, and the development of resources and infrastructure in managing conscience-based requests, to enable healthcare professionals uphold their fiduciary duties and promote positive patient experiences. This model of managing conscientious based situations may be applicable to other healthcare organizations that provide various morally controversial services.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10609-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Responding to conscientious objection and participation declarations to various morally contentious medical services requires a careful, inclusive, and comprehensive approach in reconciling the right of conscience of involved parties. In this paper, we make a case that the traditional discourse of whether or not to accommodate conscience-based requests does not adequately support complex, team-based healthcare systems in addressing emerging areas of moral controversy in medicine, particularly in this era of polarization. We describe how key parties in our organization developed an inclusive and comprehensive approach to reconciling rights of conscience in the context of the introduction of a morally contentious and divisive medical practice. This approach prioritized the building of a moral community, a recognition of moral diversity, a values-based approach, and the development of resources and infrastructure in managing conscience-based requests, to enable healthcare professionals uphold their fiduciary duties and promote positive patient experiences. This model of managing conscientious based situations may be applicable to other healthcare organizations that provide various morally controversial services.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies