Conscientious commitment, professional obligations and abortion provision after the reversal ofRoe v Wade

Author:

Giubilini AlbertoORCID,Schuklenk UdoORCID,Minerva Francesca,Savulescu JulianORCID

Abstract

We argue that, in certain circumstances, doctors might beprofessionallyjustified to provide abortions even in those jurisdictions where abortion is illegal. That it is at least professionally permissible does not mean that they have an all-things-considered ethical justification or obligation to provide illegal abortions or that professional obligations or professional permissibility trump legal obligations. It rather means that professional organisations should respect and indeed protect doctors’ positive claims of conscience to provide abortions if they plausibly track what is in the best medical interests of their patients. It is the responsibility of state authorities to enforce the law, but it is the responsibility of professional organisations to uphold the highest standards of medical ethics, even when they conflict with the law. Whatever the legal sanctions in place, healthcare professionals should not be sanctioned by the professional bodies for providing abortions according to professional standards, even if illegally. Indeed, professional organisation should lobby to offer protection to such professionals. Our arguments have practical implications for what healthcare professionals and healthcare professional organisations may or should do in those jurisdictions that legally prohibit abortion, such as some US States after the reversal ofRoe v Wade.

Funder

Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education

Wellcome Trust

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)

Reference44 articles.

1. AL ET , Supreme Court of the United States . Dobbs, state health officer of the mississippi department of health, ET AL. V. jackson women’s health organization ET AL. 2022. Available: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

2. Pew Research Center . Public opinions on abortion; 2022. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

3. The New York Times . Tracking the states where abortion is now banned. 2022. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html [Accessed 31 Jul 2022].

4. Undem P . The texas electorate on abortion. results from a statewide survey. 2022. Available: https://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2022/08/PerryUndem-Texas-Electorate-on-Abortion_SB-8.pdf

5. WHO . Abortion. key facts; 2021. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion [Accessed 11 Jan 2023].

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3