Questionable benefits and unavoidable personal beliefs: defending conscientious objection for abortion

• Published in: Journal of medical ethics Vol. 46; no. 3; pp. 178 - 182
• Main Authors: Blackshaw, Bruce Philip, Rodger, Daniel
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.03.2020
• Subjects: Abortion; Bioethics; Childbirth & labor; Medical ethics; Mental health; Mortality; Patients; Physicians; Pregnancy; Rape; Womens health; United Kingdom > UK; codes of/position statements on professional ethics; reproductive medicine; abortion; conscientious objection; clinical ethics
• ISSN: 0306-6800; 1473-4257
• DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105566

Conscientious objection in healthcare has come under heavy criticism on two grounds recently, particularly regarding abortion provision. First, critics claim conscientious objection involves a refusal to provide a legal and beneficial procedure requested by a patient, denying them access to healthcare. Second, they argue the exercise of conscientious objection is based on unverifiable personal beliefs. These characteristics, it is claimed, disqualify conscientious objection in healthcare. Here, we defend conscientious objection in the context of abortion provision. We show that abortion has a dubitable claim to be medically beneficial, is rarely clinically indicated, and that conscientious objections should be accepted in these circumstances. We also show that reliance on personal beliefs is difficult to avoid if any form of objection is to be permitted, even if it is based on criteria such as the principles and values of the profession or the scope of professional practice.