Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
J Relig Ethics
March 2024
Institute of Philosophy at Jagiellonian University in Kraków (Poland) and head of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics at Jagiellonian University, where he leads the project BIOUNCERTAINTY funded by a European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant.
A dogma accepted in many ethical, religious, and legal frameworks is that the reasons behind conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare cannot be evaluated or judged by any institution because conscience is individual and autonomous. This paper shows that this background view is mistaken: the requirement to reveal and explain the reasons for conscientious objection in healthcare is ethically justified and legally desirable. Referring to real healthcare cases and legal regulations, this paper argues that these reasons should be evaluated either ex ante or ex post and defends novel conceptual claims that have not been analyzed in the debates on CO.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFContraception
January 2025
Collaborative for Reproductive Equity, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1300 University Avenue, Medical Sciences Center 4245 Madison, WI 53706 USA. Electronic address:
In 2022, the United States' Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and federal protections for abortion.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBioethics
January 2025
Department of Philosophy, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
According to Hendricks Impairment Argument (IA), abortion is immoral because it impairs the fetus. Here, I argue it is not sufficient to show merely that abortion impairs, Hendricks must show that it harms the fetus. If the fetus is not numerically identical to the person it will become, then it isn't harmed by an abortion.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Law Med
November 2024
Barrister, Castan Chambers, Melbourne, Australia; Professor of Law and Professorial Fellow in Psychiatry, University of Melbourne; Honorary Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash; Adjunct Professor, Southern Cross University.
This editorial reviews the changes over two decades in the United States and Australia in relation to the law governing access to drugs enabling medical termination of pregnancy. It also scrutinises three contentious decisions by the United States Supreme Court between 2022 and 2024 in relation to abortion. It argues that the receptive environment in the United States Supreme Court, as it is currently constituted, to challenges to the lawfulness of terminations of pregnancy and abortion medications is likely to inspire comparable challenges as part of the "Abortion Wars" in other countries, including Australia.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Ethics
December 2024
Uehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Conscience is typically invoked in healthcare to defend a right to conscientious objection, that is, the refusal by healthcare professionals to perform certain activities in the name of personal moral or religious views. On this approach, freedom of conscience should be respected when the individual is operating in a professional capacity. Others would argue, however, that a conscientious professional is one who can set aside one's own moral or religious views when they conflict with professional obligations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!