Affiliation:
1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
2. University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, USA
Abstract
Abstract
Debates about the ethics of health care and medical research in contemporary pluralistic democracies often arise partly from competing religious and secular values. Such disagreements raise challenges of balancing claims of religious liberty with claims to equal treatment in health care. This paper proposes several mid-level principles to help in framing sound policies for resolving such disputes. We develop and illustrate these principles, exploring their application to conscientious objection by religious providers and religious institutions, accommodation of religious priorities in biomedical research, and treatment of patients’ religious views in doctor–patient encounters. Given that no sound set of guiding principles yields precise solutions for every policy dispute, we explore how morally sound democracies might deliberatively resolve such policy issues, following our proposed principles. Taken together and carefully interpreted, these principles may help in guiding difficult decision making in the indefinitely large realm where government, medical providers, and patients encounter problems concerning religion and medicine.
Funder
National Institute of Mental Health
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Philosophy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference118 articles.
1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 385 November 2007: The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine;American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;Obstetrics and Gynecology,2007
2. Opinion 1.1.7;American Medical Association,2016
3. What is the point of equality?;Anderson;Ethics,1999
4. A contextualist theory of epistemic justification;Annis;American Philosophical Quarterly,1978
Cited by
10 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