The Inevitability of Assessing Reasons in Debates about Conscientious Objection in Medicine

This article first critically reviews the major philosophical positions in the literature on conscientious objection and finds that they possess significant flaws. A substantial number of these problems stem from the fact that these views fail to assess the reasons offered by medical professionals i...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Card, Robert F. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press 2017
In: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Year: 2017, Volume: 26, Issue: 1, Pages: 82-96
Further subjects:B exemptions
B Professional Responsibility
B Conscience
B justification in conscientious objection
B Reasonableness
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1827974818
003 DE-627
005 20221220052644.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221220s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1017/S0963180116000669  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1827974818 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1827974818 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Card, Robert F.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The Inevitability of Assessing Reasons in Debates about Conscientious Objection in Medicine 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article first critically reviews the major philosophical positions in the literature on conscientious objection and finds that they possess significant flaws. A substantial number of these problems stem from the fact that these views fail to assess the reasons offered by medical professionals in support of their objections. This observation is used to motivate the reasonability view, one part of which states: A practitioner who lodges a conscientious refusal must publicly state his or her objection as well as the reasoned basis for the objection and have these subjected to critical evaluation before a conscientious exemption can be granted (the reason-giving requirement). It is then argued that when defenders of the other philosophical views attempt to avoid granting an accommodation to spurious objections based on discrimination, empirically mistaken beliefs, or other unjustified biases, they are implicitly committed to the reason-giving requirement. This article concludes that based on these considerations, a reason-giving position such as the reasonability view possesses a decisive advantage in this debate. 
650 4 |a Professional Responsibility 
650 4 |a exemptions 
650 4 |a Reasonableness 
650 4 |a justification in conscientious objection 
650 4 |a Conscience 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics  |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992  |g 26(2017), 1, Seite 82-96  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)306655039  |w (DE-600)1499985-7  |w (DE-576)081985010  |x 1469-2147  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:26  |g year:2017  |g number:1  |g pages:82-96 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180116000669  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/inevitability-of-assessing-reasons-in-debates-about-conscientious-objection-in-medicine/112692ED1839380F3191D09A894B7EA0  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4235379720 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1827974818 
LOK |0 005 20221220052644 
LOK |0 008 221220||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-12-06#249856039AED62AEA097B4C6B5CF9D4B0E12635F 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw