堕胎:权利的纠结。

L. Curtin
{"title":"堕胎:权利的纠结。","authors":"L. Curtin","doi":"10.1097/00006247-199302000-00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Management of abortion personnel within a hospital setting involves a number of rights: the patients rights to privacy and to the provision of competent compassionate and understanding nursing care; the right of nurses to refrain from abortion procedures due to conscience; and the right of hospitals to hire employees who will fulfill their contractual obligations. The US Supreme Court has held that the decision to abort is protected under the right to privacy; no one may interfere with a womans decision. Public institutions do not have an obligation to fund abortion. If the Court had made abortion a right then society would be obliged to provide abortion. The discussion of abortion rights focuses on the following topics: the legal duties of health professionals the legal and moral rights and obligations of nurses the legal rights and obligations of hospitals and the rights of abortion patients. A case study is provided of a head nurse and staff in the gynecology ward of a large metropolitan hospital in 1974 who objected to the performance of saline abortion on the ward to disposing of the fetuses and to the validity of patients consent. Their concern was for the health and safety of patients and the rights of patients to informed consent. The hospital did not have a right to force the nurses to comply with the directive on saline abortion procedures because the hospital did not have the right to violate the conscience of an individual citizen. In another example of a transfer of a nurse to another area of the hospital the hospital was exercising its prerogative to expect fulfillment of contractual obligations in a way that did not interfere with health care workers objections to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were the 2 cases that established the existence of institutional conscience. Health care workers have an obligation to inform hospitals in writing if they have objections to participation in abortion procedures. Nurses have an obligation to respect the legal right to privacy in making or carrying out an abortion decision and to provide competent nursing care to all who receive their services. Nurses should not make judgments about their approval or disapproval of abortion or the patients reasons for abortion. Patients have a right to be protected from emotional and physical harm from objecting nurses; nurses may withdraw their services only if there are other qualified professionals available to provide care.","PeriodicalId":90816,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry (Sunnyvale, Calif.)","volume":"43 1","pages":"26, 28, 30-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00006247-199302000-00006","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abortion: a tangle of rights.\",\"authors\":\"L. Curtin\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/00006247-199302000-00006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Management of abortion personnel within a hospital setting involves a number of rights: the patients rights to privacy and to the provision of competent compassionate and understanding nursing care; the right of nurses to refrain from abortion procedures due to conscience; and the right of hospitals to hire employees who will fulfill their contractual obligations. The US Supreme Court has held that the decision to abort is protected under the right to privacy; no one may interfere with a womans decision. Public institutions do not have an obligation to fund abortion. If the Court had made abortion a right then society would be obliged to provide abortion. The discussion of abortion rights focuses on the following topics: the legal duties of health professionals the legal and moral rights and obligations of nurses the legal rights and obligations of hospitals and the rights of abortion patients. A case study is provided of a head nurse and staff in the gynecology ward of a large metropolitan hospital in 1974 who objected to the performance of saline abortion on the ward to disposing of the fetuses and to the validity of patients consent. Their concern was for the health and safety of patients and the rights of patients to informed consent. The hospital did not have a right to force the nurses to comply with the directive on saline abortion procedures because the hospital did not have the right to violate the conscience of an individual citizen. In another example of a transfer of a nurse to another area of the hospital the hospital was exercising its prerogative to expect fulfillment of contractual obligations in a way that did not interfere with health care workers objections to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were the 2 cases that established the existence of institutional conscience. Health care workers have an obligation to inform hospitals in writing if they have objections to participation in abortion procedures. Nurses have an obligation to respect the legal right to privacy in making or carrying out an abortion decision and to provide competent nursing care to all who receive their services. Nurses should not make judgments about their approval or disapproval of abortion or the patients reasons for abortion. Patients have a right to be protected from emotional and physical harm from objecting nurses; nurses may withdraw their services only if there are other qualified professionals available to provide care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry (Sunnyvale, Calif.)\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"26, 28, 30-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00006247-199302000-00006\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry (Sunnyvale, Calif.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/00006247-199302000-00006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry (Sunnyvale, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00006247-199302000-00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

医院内堕胎人员的管理涉及若干权利:患者的隐私权和获得称职、富有同情心和理解的护理的权利;护士因良心原因不进行堕胎手术的权利;以及医院雇佣履行合同义务的员工的权利。美国最高法院认为,堕胎的决定受到隐私权的保护;没有人可以干涉女人的决定。公共机构没有义务资助堕胎。如果法院规定堕胎是一项权利,那么社会就有义务提供堕胎。关于堕胎权利的讨论侧重于以下主题:保健专业人员的法律义务、护士的法律和道德权利和义务、医院的法律权利和义务以及堕胎患者的权利。提供了1974年一个大型都市医院妇科病房的护士长和工作人员的案例研究,他们反对在病房进行盐水流产,以处理胎儿和病人同意的有效性。他们关心的是病人的健康和安全以及病人知情同意的权利。医院无权强迫护士遵守关于盐水流产程序的指令,因为医院无权违背公民个人的良心。在另一个将一名护士调到医院其他部门的例子中,医院正在行使其特权,期望以不妨碍保健工作者反对堕胎的方式履行合同义务。罗伊诉韦德案和多伊诉博尔顿案是确立制度良知存在的两个案例。保健工作者有义务以书面形式通知医院,如果他们反对参与堕胎程序。护士有义务在作出或执行堕胎决定时尊重合法的隐私权,并向所有接受其服务的人提供合格的护理。护士不应对自己是否赞成流产或患者流产的原因做出判断。病人有权受到保护,免受因反对护士而造成的情感和身体伤害;只有当有其他合格的专业人员可以提供护理时,护士才可以退出服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Abortion: a tangle of rights.
Management of abortion personnel within a hospital setting involves a number of rights: the patients rights to privacy and to the provision of competent compassionate and understanding nursing care; the right of nurses to refrain from abortion procedures due to conscience; and the right of hospitals to hire employees who will fulfill their contractual obligations. The US Supreme Court has held that the decision to abort is protected under the right to privacy; no one may interfere with a womans decision. Public institutions do not have an obligation to fund abortion. If the Court had made abortion a right then society would be obliged to provide abortion. The discussion of abortion rights focuses on the following topics: the legal duties of health professionals the legal and moral rights and obligations of nurses the legal rights and obligations of hospitals and the rights of abortion patients. A case study is provided of a head nurse and staff in the gynecology ward of a large metropolitan hospital in 1974 who objected to the performance of saline abortion on the ward to disposing of the fetuses and to the validity of patients consent. Their concern was for the health and safety of patients and the rights of patients to informed consent. The hospital did not have a right to force the nurses to comply with the directive on saline abortion procedures because the hospital did not have the right to violate the conscience of an individual citizen. In another example of a transfer of a nurse to another area of the hospital the hospital was exercising its prerogative to expect fulfillment of contractual obligations in a way that did not interfere with health care workers objections to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were the 2 cases that established the existence of institutional conscience. Health care workers have an obligation to inform hospitals in writing if they have objections to participation in abortion procedures. Nurses have an obligation to respect the legal right to privacy in making or carrying out an abortion decision and to provide competent nursing care to all who receive their services. Nurses should not make judgments about their approval or disapproval of abortion or the patients reasons for abortion. Patients have a right to be protected from emotional and physical harm from objecting nurses; nurses may withdraw their services only if there are other qualified professionals available to provide care.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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