Conscientious Objection in Medicine

Conscientious objection in the Medical Field

Conscientious objection is defined as an act in which an individual refuses to offer a service due to personal or religious views without discriminating against the clients directly or indirectly. In the medical field, it refers to a circumstance in which a healthcare provider declines to give a treatment to a patient due to personal values and beliefs, without directly discriminating against a group of patients or individual patients (Bradley 12).

The Key Elements of Conscientious Objection

After pleas by more healthcare professionals for this objection by international legislators, there is growing worry, and it has therefore become a source of dispute among members of the public and ethicists. Legal statutes and devotional codes form the key elements that should not be overlooked in cases of conscientious objection in the health sector (Bradley 17).

The Relationship between Morality and Medicine

In his article, Dr. Bradley describes conscientious objection as the inclination of a healthcare provider to decline to offer certain types of services to patients which he or she does not agree personally although it may be medically appropriate. He focuses on the medical literature and current legislative measures affecting the medical practice together with the basic ethical argumentation. He clearly depicts that the commonly used terms which most people do not view them as different that is, medically appropriate, moral, legal and ethical are separate terms and still apply to people’s lives and critical when making decisions yet in medical field these terms are strongly related. Therefore, the medical professionals have to be aware of their boundaries within which they can impose their services and also their commitments as physicians (Bradley 24).

Moral Dilemmas Faced by Physicians

In his article, he emphasizes that physicians are moral beings and that nothing should compromise their morality in form of legislatures, interests by the patients as well as the medical community. He gives several cases which pose a dilemma to the physicians with different beliefs such as pro- life with a patient who wishes to have an abortion or for a sterilization procedure. He also acknowledges that some states have come up with laws that protect the health care providers from in case they refuse to offer some services such as the Michigan Conscientious Objector Policy Act of 2004 which permits health care providers to refuse to offer healthcare services if it is against their believes in exception of emergency cases. He cites that amidst the much debate on this topic, the major likely solution is the physician-referral policy which allows a physician to refer a patient to another physician in case a patient does request for a service the physician is not comfortable providing (Bradley 25).

Physician’s Obligation and Patient Autonomy

Dr. Bradley’s article, a moral dilemma in the context of conscientious objection in medicine, he has proved to be effective in most of his arguments. Healthcare providers have an obligation to uphold the reasonable wishes of their patients. This is an effective argument since the sole role of a physician is to offer health care services to their clients as per their oath. However not all wishes must be fulfilled rather they can help the physician in decision-making towards the services to be offered to the patient. Most of the wishes may be more harmful to the patient and not medically acceptable and thus at times, physicians must make decisions concerning their patients for the best outcome irrespective of the wishes of the patients (Bradley 30).

The Importance of Patient Autonomy

Conscientious objection denies the patient the power to make decisions concerning their health. This is due to the fact that it gives the physicians the power to make decisions for the patient. He emphasizes that for the patient to make reasonable decisions they ought to be availed with all the relevant information. Once the patient is well informed of the particular health state, the physician should honor the wishes of the patient if they are reasonable. The physician should always remember that the right of a patient to control their medical care and their autonomy is undisputable. This key in preventing scenarios whereby the patients may feel that their right to make decisions has been compromised due to conscientious objection by their health providers (Bradley 32).

Physician-Referral Policy as a Solution

Physician-referral policy can be adopted as part of the solution to the crisis caused by a conscientious obligation of healthcare providers. This policy helps by the fact that a patient does not entirely depend on one physician for health services since one physician can refer the patient to another healthcare provider who can provide the services without any restrictions. The major limitation for this policy to work is that many service providers are required to be available failure to that the patients may suffer from lack of access to medical services. This policy is effective in cases where some physicians have beliefs that may not allow them to offer particular services to their clients (Bradley 33).

Respecting Physician’s Morality

Physicians have their morals which should not be altered by the interests of the patients, the laws that affect their profession or the medical community. Most people end up blaming the health care providers who have opted to uphold their beliefs while providing some health services. Members of the society must remember that the physicians also have their moral and believes which they ought to stand for despite their choice of careers (Bradley 35).

The Limitation and Impact of Conscientious Objection

It is evident that the doctors’ conscience has minimum opportunity in modern health sector. This is due to the fact that the consequences of offering medical services can be life threatening. Such objection can only apply when there is an alternative physician to offer the service. Despite the fact that good reasons to accommodate this objection, it has direct impact on the patient’s health (Bradley 33).

Conclusion

In conclusion, cases of health care providers seeking conscientious objection cases in the health sector have increased in the health sector in the recent past and thus can no longer be ignored in the society. This follows the several changes involving legalization of some practices such as abortion in many countries and physician-assisted suicide which have raised ethical conflicts in the health sector. Given the changes in the patient-physician relationship from paternalism to patient autonomy, conscientious objection has been suggested by many ethicists as a way to improve the patient-doctor relationship as well as the quality of medical care. In cases where conscientious objection is based on respect for the right to life of humankind, form a reasonable basis to appeal for conscience legally, ethically and medically. Thus not all the cases of conscientious objection should be faced with critics in the society.

Work Cited

Ishmeal Bradley. Conscientious objection in medicine: A moral dilemma. Clinical correlation journal. 2009. Print.