医疗保健中“良心反对”的起源:由于堕胎,医疗拒绝如何成为法律。

IF 1.6 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Christian Fiala, Joyce Arthur, Amelia Martzke
{"title":"医疗保健中“良心反对”的起源:由于堕胎,医疗拒绝如何成为法律。","authors":"Christian Fiala, Joyce Arthur, Amelia Martzke","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.46","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179533/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Origin of \\\"Conscientious Objection\\\" in Health Care: How Care Denials Became Enshrined into Law Because of Abortion.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Fiala, Joyce Arthur, Amelia Martzke\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jme.2025.46\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179533/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.46\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.46","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

联合王国是第一个将以“良心拒服兵役”为名拒绝提供保健合法化的国家,允许医生基于个人或宗教信仰拒绝提供堕胎。对1967年《堕胎法》中“良心反对”条款的起源和动机的历史回顾发现,议员和医学界希望维护医生对病人的权威,保护反对堕胎的医生免受责任,并安抚宗教上的反堕胎信仰。这些因素表明,在医疗保健领域引入“良心反对”是没有原则的,最终是以牺牲患者的权利和健康为代价的。“良心条款”也否定了医疗实践中的基本道德准则,包括病人的自主权和医生对病人的信托义务。“良心拒服兵役”一词——借用于军队,但误用于医疗保健——帮助掩盖了这种做法是医生的道德“权利”,即使它无视病人的健康和尊严。基于“良心”拒绝提供治疗是有害的和歧视性的,应逐步取消,并采取抑制措施和其他措施,鼓励反对者选择其他领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Origin of "Conscientious Objection" in Health Care: How Care Denials Became Enshrined into Law Because of Abortion.

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.

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
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
×
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