Conscientious objection and the duty to refer.
conscientious objection
duty to refer
freedom of conscience
professionalism
referral
religious objection
therapeutic continuity
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
30
09
2021
accepted:
06
10
2021
pubmed:
11
10
2021
medline:
4
11
2021
entrez:
10
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Medical associations and leading courts reinforce the duty of physicians who conscientiously object to participating in treatment indicated for their patients to refer them to non-objecting practitioners. Ethical and legal duties require continuity of care when physicians withdraw from patients' treatment on grounds of conscience. The duty to refer might affect gynecologists when their patients request for example, contraceptive means, sterilization, abortion, medically assisted reproductive procedures, or gender reassignment. Legislation and leading law courts, notably the UK Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of Colombia, and professional associations such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, have clarified the duty to refer. Physicians are expected to cater their individual conscience to their professional ethical and legal duties, favoring their patients' choices over their personal objections. Physicians can object to "hands-on" conduct of procedures they find objectionable, but cannot deny referral on grounds of complicity in what other care providers do.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
556-560Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Veatch RM. The Patient-Physician Relation: The Patient as Partner, Part 2 (Medical Ethics). Indiana University Press; 1991:152.
Constitution of the World Health Organization. 1946. Preamble para. 1.
R.R. v. Poland (2011), Application No. 27617/04, para. 206 (European Court of Human Rights).
FIGO. Ethical considerations regarding requests and offering of cosmetic genital surgery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;128:85-86.
Book of Genesis i, 28; ix, 1.
Dickens BM. Paid surrogacy abroad does not violate public policy: UK Supreme Court. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;150(1):129-133.
Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 393 (Ontario Court of Appeal).
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Policy Statement #2-15. Professional Obligations and Human Rights. 2015.
Lynch HF. Conflicts of Conscience in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise: MIT Press; 2008.
Abortion Legislation Act 2020 (2020 No 6), s.8 (incorporating 1977 Act s. 14(2) (b)).
Greater Glasgow Health Board v. Doogan, [2014] UKSC 68 (United Kingdom Supreme Court).
Decision T-209 of 2008 (Constitutional Court of Colombia).
Cook RJ, Olaya MA, Dickens BM. Healthcare responsibilities and conscientious objection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;104(2):249-252.
NeJaime D, Siegel RB. Conscience wars: complicity-based conscience claims in religion and politics. Yale Law J. 2015;124(7):2516-2591.
Parsa-Parsi RW. The revised declaration of Geneva: a modern-day physician’s pledge. JAMA. 2017;318(20):1971.
United Blood Services v. Quintana (1992) 827 Pacific Reporter 2d 509, at 521 (Supreme Court of Colorado).