加拿大机构对死亡医疗援助的良心反对:对以人为本的论点的批判性分析

IF 0.3 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS
Nicholas J. Abernethy
{"title":"加拿大机构对死亡医疗援助的良心反对:对以人为本的论点的批判性分析","authors":"Nicholas J. Abernethy","doi":"10.7202/1101127ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Debate rages over whether Canadian provincial and territorial governments should allow healthcare institutions to conscientiously object to providing medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This issue is likely to end up in court soon through challenges from patients, clinicians, or advocacy groups such as Dying With Dignity Canada. When it does, one key question for the courts will be whether allowing institutional conscientious objection (ICO) to MAiD respects (i.e., shows due regard for) the consciences of the objecting healthcare institutions, understood as unitary entities. This question has been thoroughly explored elsewhere in the academic literature. However, another key question has been underexplored. Specifically, precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) suggests that the courts will consider whether allowing ICO to MAiD respects the consciences of the personnel within objecting healthcare institutions. My answer to this question is no, by which I mean that allowing ICO to MAiD shows undue disregard for some consciences and undue regard for others. To justify this answer, I analyze the arguments that hold that allowing ICO in healthcare respects the consciences of the personnel within objecting healthcare institutions. My conclusion is that none of these personnel-based arguments succeed in the case of ICO to MAiD. Some fail because they are wrong about the nature of conscience and complicity. Others fail because they contradict the arguments’ proponents’ positions on conscientious objection by individual healthcare providers. Still others fail because they are internally inconsistent.","PeriodicalId":37334,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Bioethics","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Conscientious Objection to Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: A Critical Analysis of the Personnel-Based Arguments\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas J. Abernethy\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1101127ar\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Debate rages over whether Canadian provincial and territorial governments should allow healthcare institutions to conscientiously object to providing medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This issue is likely to end up in court soon through challenges from patients, clinicians, or advocacy groups such as Dying With Dignity Canada. When it does, one key question for the courts will be whether allowing institutional conscientious objection (ICO) to MAiD respects (i.e., shows due regard for) the consciences of the objecting healthcare institutions, understood as unitary entities. This question has been thoroughly explored elsewhere in the academic literature. However, another key question has been underexplored. Specifically, precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) suggests that the courts will consider whether allowing ICO to MAiD respects the consciences of the personnel within objecting healthcare institutions. My answer to this question is no, by which I mean that allowing ICO to MAiD shows undue disregard for some consciences and undue regard for others. To justify this answer, I analyze the arguments that hold that allowing ICO in healthcare respects the consciences of the personnel within objecting healthcare institutions. My conclusion is that none of these personnel-based arguments succeed in the case of ICO to MAiD. Some fail because they are wrong about the nature of conscience and complicity. Others fail because they contradict the arguments’ proponents’ positions on conscientious objection by individual healthcare providers. Still others fail because they are internally inconsistent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1101127ar\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1101127ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

关于加拿大各省和地区政府是否应该允许医疗机构自觉地拒绝提供临终医疗援助(MAiD)的争论非常激烈。这个问题很可能很快就会在法庭上结束,因为病人、临床医生或倡导团体(如加拿大有尊严地死去)提出了挑战。当这种情况发生时,法院面临的一个关键问题将是,是否允许机构良心反对(ICO)尊重(即适当考虑)反对医疗机构的良心,将其理解为单一实体。这个问题已经在学术文献的其他地方进行了深入的探讨。然而,另一个关键问题尚未得到充分探讨。具体而言,加拿大最高法院在Loyola高中诉魁北克省(总检察长)一案中的判例表明,法院将考虑允许ICO进行MAiD是否尊重提出异议的医疗机构内人员的良心。我对这个问题的回答是否定的,我的意思是允许哈里发国进行MAiD是对一些良知的过度漠视和对其他人的过度尊重。为了证明这个答案是正确的,我分析了一些论点,这些论点认为,允许在医疗保健领域进行ICO尊重了反对医疗保健机构内人员的良心。我的结论是,在ICO to MAiD的案例中,这些基于人员的论点都没有成功。有些人失败了,因为他们错误地理解了良心和共谋的本质。另一些则失败了,因为它们与论点的支持者关于个人医疗保健提供者良心反对的立场相矛盾。还有一些失败是因为它们内部不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Institutional Conscientious Objection to Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: A Critical Analysis of the Personnel-Based Arguments
Debate rages over whether Canadian provincial and territorial governments should allow healthcare institutions to conscientiously object to providing medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This issue is likely to end up in court soon through challenges from patients, clinicians, or advocacy groups such as Dying With Dignity Canada. When it does, one key question for the courts will be whether allowing institutional conscientious objection (ICO) to MAiD respects (i.e., shows due regard for) the consciences of the objecting healthcare institutions, understood as unitary entities. This question has been thoroughly explored elsewhere in the academic literature. However, another key question has been underexplored. Specifically, precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) suggests that the courts will consider whether allowing ICO to MAiD respects the consciences of the personnel within objecting healthcare institutions. My answer to this question is no, by which I mean that allowing ICO to MAiD shows undue disregard for some consciences and undue regard for others. To justify this answer, I analyze the arguments that hold that allowing ICO in healthcare respects the consciences of the personnel within objecting healthcare institutions. My conclusion is that none of these personnel-based arguments succeed in the case of ICO to MAiD. Some fail because they are wrong about the nature of conscience and complicity. Others fail because they contradict the arguments’ proponents’ positions on conscientious objection by individual healthcare providers. Still others fail because they are internally inconsistent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Bioethics
Canadian Journal of Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信