"不光彩的不服从"——为什么在生殖保健方面拒绝治疗不是出于良心的反对

Christian Fiala , Joyce H. Arthur
{"title":"\"不光彩的不服从\"——为什么在生殖保健方面拒绝治疗不是出于良心的反对","authors":"Christian Fiala ,&nbsp;Joyce H. Arthur","doi":"10.1016/j.woman.2014.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In medicine, the vast majority of conscientious objection (CO) is exercised within the reproductive healthcare field – particularly for abortion and contraception. Current laws and practices in various countries around CO in reproductive healthcare show that it is unworkable and frequently abused, with harmful impacts on women's healthcare and rights. CO in medicine is supposedly analogous to CO in the military, but in fact the two have little in common.</p><p>This paper argues that CO in reproductive health is not actually <em>Conscientious Objection</em>, but <em>Dishonourable Disobedience</em> (DD) to laws and ethical codes. Healthcare professionals who exercise CO are using their position of trust and authority to impose their personal beliefs on patients, who are completely dependent on them for essential healthcare. Health systems and institutions that prohibit staff from providing abortion or contraception services are being discriminatory by systematically denying healthcare services to a vulnerable population and disregarding conscience rights for abortion providers.</p><p>CO in reproductive healthcare should be dealt with like any other failure to perform one's professional duty, through enforcement and disciplinary measures. Counteracting institutional CO may require governmental or even international intervention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101282,"journal":{"name":"Woman - Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics","volume":"1 ","pages":"Pages 12-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.woman.2014.03.001","citationCount":"59","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Dishonourable disobedience” – Why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection\",\"authors\":\"Christian Fiala ,&nbsp;Joyce H. Arthur\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.woman.2014.03.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In medicine, the vast majority of conscientious objection (CO) is exercised within the reproductive healthcare field – particularly for abortion and contraception. Current laws and practices in various countries around CO in reproductive healthcare show that it is unworkable and frequently abused, with harmful impacts on women's healthcare and rights. CO in medicine is supposedly analogous to CO in the military, but in fact the two have little in common.</p><p>This paper argues that CO in reproductive health is not actually <em>Conscientious Objection</em>, but <em>Dishonourable Disobedience</em> (DD) to laws and ethical codes. Healthcare professionals who exercise CO are using their position of trust and authority to impose their personal beliefs on patients, who are completely dependent on them for essential healthcare. Health systems and institutions that prohibit staff from providing abortion or contraception services are being discriminatory by systematically denying healthcare services to a vulnerable population and disregarding conscience rights for abortion providers.</p><p>CO in reproductive healthcare should be dealt with like any other failure to perform one's professional duty, through enforcement and disciplinary measures. Counteracting institutional CO may require governmental or even international intervention.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Woman - Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 12-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.woman.2014.03.001\",\"citationCount\":\"59\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Woman - Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213560X14000034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Woman - Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213560X14000034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

摘要

在医学领域,绝大多数出于良心拒服兵役是在生殖保健领域,特别是在堕胎和避孕方面。各国在生殖保健方面的现行法律和做法表明,这是行不通的,而且经常被滥用,对妇女的保健和权利产生有害影响。医学上的一氧化碳被认为类似于军事上的一氧化碳,但实际上两者几乎没有共同之处。本文认为,生殖健康中的CO实际上不是良心反对,而是对法律和道德规范的不服从(DD)。行使CO的医护专业人员是在利用他们的信任和权威地位,将他们的个人信仰强加给完全依赖他们获得基本医疗服务的病人。禁止工作人员提供堕胎或避孕服务的卫生系统和机构系统性地拒绝向弱势群体提供卫生保健服务,无视堕胎提供者的良心权利,这是一种歧视。应像处理任何其他不履行其专业职责的行为一样,通过执法和纪律措施处理生殖保健方面的过失。对抗机构CO可能需要政府甚至国际干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Dishonourable disobedience” – Why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection

In medicine, the vast majority of conscientious objection (CO) is exercised within the reproductive healthcare field – particularly for abortion and contraception. Current laws and practices in various countries around CO in reproductive healthcare show that it is unworkable and frequently abused, with harmful impacts on women's healthcare and rights. CO in medicine is supposedly analogous to CO in the military, but in fact the two have little in common.

This paper argues that CO in reproductive health is not actually Conscientious Objection, but Dishonourable Disobedience (DD) to laws and ethical codes. Healthcare professionals who exercise CO are using their position of trust and authority to impose their personal beliefs on patients, who are completely dependent on them for essential healthcare. Health systems and institutions that prohibit staff from providing abortion or contraception services are being discriminatory by systematically denying healthcare services to a vulnerable population and disregarding conscience rights for abortion providers.

CO in reproductive healthcare should be dealt with like any other failure to perform one's professional duty, through enforcement and disciplinary measures. Counteracting institutional CO may require governmental or even international intervention.

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