Abstract
Stakeholders in law, medicine, and religion are unable to reach consensus about how best to address conflicts between healthcare providers' conscientious objections to treatment and patients' rights to access medical care. Conscience laws that protect objecting providers and institutions from liability are criticized as too broad by patient advocates and as too narrow by defenders of religious freedom. This Article posits that some of the tension between these stakeholders could be mitigated by statutory recognition of a duty on the part of healthcare institutions or providers to disclose conscientiously motivated limitations on practice. While this solution would not guarantee a patient's access to treatment, referral, or information from any given provider, it would prevent some of the more egregious cases of denial of treatment—those where patients are not made aware that a legal and clinically defensible treatment option is excluded from a provider's or institution's scope of practice and so have no opportunity to seek care elsewhere.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,General Medicine,Health(social science)
Reference68 articles.
1. Abortion Provision Among Practicing Obstetrician–Gynecologists
2. Conscience Wars: Complicity-Based Conscience Claims in Religion and Politics;NeJaime;Yale L.J.,2015
3. A Matter of Context: Casey and the Constitutionality of Compelled Physician Speech
4. Obstacles to the Integration of Abortion Into Obstetrics and Gynecology Practice
5. Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2012;Pazol;Ctrs for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Wkly. Rep.,2015
Cited by
6 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