Discriminatory Conscientious Objections in Healthcare: A Response to Ancell and Sinnott-Armstrong
| Autor: | Katrien Devolder |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Financial costs
Health (social science) business.industry Health Policy Conscientious objector Patient rights Refusal to Treat Issues ethics and legal aspects Patient Rights Political science Physicians Health care Humans Private healthcare business Delivery of Health Care Conscience Law and economics |
| Zdroj: | Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees. 28(2) |
| ISSN: | 1469-2147 |
| Popis: | Aaron Ancell and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (A&SA) propose a pragmatic approach to problems arising from conscientious objections in healthcare. Their primary focus is on private healthcare systems like that in the United States. A&SA defend three claims: (i) many conscientious objections in healthcare are morally permissible and should be lawful, (ii) conscientious objections that involve invidious discrimination are morally impermissible, but (iii) even invidiously-discriminatory conscientious objections should not always be unlawful, as there is a better way to protect patient rights. Pursuant to (iii), A&SA propose a framework that legally allows discriminatory conscientious objections, but that shifts the financial costs associated with such objections from patients to the clinics that employ doctors who discriminate against patients. Though their proposal is controversial, it has attractive features, and merits further discussion. In this paper, I remain neutral on the third claim A&SA advance in support of their proposal, but point out a problem with the two first claims. In the light of my criticisms, I propose to modify their proposal so that costs are shifted to clinics in a broader range of cases. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|