Physician Refusal to Provide Information or Treatment on the Basis of Claims of Conscience

Author:

Abstract

Health care professionals may have moral objections to particular medical interventions. They may refuse to provide or cooperate in the provision of these interventions. Such objections are referred to as conscientious objections. Although it may be difficult to characterize or validate claims of conscience, respecting the individual physician's moral integrity is important. Conflicts arise when claims of conscience impede a patient's access to medical information or care. A physician's conscientious objection to certain interventions or treatments may be constrained in some situations. Physicians have a duty to disclose to prospective patients treatments they refuse to perform. As part of informed consent, physicians also have a duty to inform their patients of all relevant and legally available treatment options, including options to which they object. They have a moral obligation to refer patients to other health care professionals who are willing to provide those services when failing to do so would cause harm to the patient, and they have a duty to treat patients in emergencies when referral would significantly increase the probability of mortality or serious morbidity. Conversely, the health care system should make reasonable accommodations for physicians with conscientious objections.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Reference22 articles.

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion No. 385: the limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(5):1203–1208

2. American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. CEJA Report 6-A-07: Physician Objection to Treatment and Individual Patient Discrimination. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2007. Available at: www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_6a07.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2008

3. General Medical Council. Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice. London, England: General Medical Council; 2008. Available at: www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/personal_beliefs/personal_beliefs.asp. Accessed December 2, 2008

4. Stein R. Pharmacists' rights at front of new debate; because of beliefs, some refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Washington Post. 2005:A1, A10

5. British Medical Association. The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(3):259–263

Cited by 45 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