Your morality, my mortality: Conscientious objection and the standard of care

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Recently the scope of protections afforded those healthcare professionals and institutions that refuse to provide certain interventions on the grounds of conscience have expanded, in some instances insulating providers (institutional and individual) from any liability or sanction for harms that patients experience as a result. With the exponential increase in the penetration of Catholic-affiliated healthcare across the country, physicians and nurses who are not practicing Catholics are nevertheless required to execute documents pledging to conform their patient care to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services as a condition of employment or medical staff privileges. In some instances, doing so may result in patient morbidity or mortality or violate professional standards for respecting advance directives or surrogate decisionmaking. This article challenges the ethical propriety of such institutional mandates and argues that legal protections for conscientious refusal must provide redress for patients who are harmed by care that falls below the prevailing clinical standards.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)214-230
Number of pages17
JournalCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Volume24
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 26 2015

Fingerprint

Standard of Care
morality
mortality
Delivery of Health Care
Medical Staff Privileges
legal protection
Mortality
conscience
health care services
patient care
sanction
morbidity
liability
privilege
Patient Harm
Codes of Ethics
Advance Directives
nurse
physician
staff

Keywords

  • abortion
  • Catholicism
  • law
  • medicine
  • professional ethics
  • religion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Cite this

Your morality, my mortality : Conscientious objection and the standard of care. / Rich, Ben A.

In: Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 26.02.2015, p. 214-230.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d21eab4339c942fe8679484adf24ffcd,
title = "Your morality, my mortality: Conscientious objection and the standard of care",
abstract = "Recently the scope of protections afforded those healthcare professionals and institutions that refuse to provide certain interventions on the grounds of conscience have expanded, in some instances insulating providers (institutional and individual) from any liability or sanction for harms that patients experience as a result. With the exponential increase in the penetration of Catholic-affiliated healthcare across the country, physicians and nurses who are not practicing Catholics are nevertheless required to execute documents pledging to conform their patient care to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services as a condition of employment or medical staff privileges. In some instances, doing so may result in patient morbidity or mortality or violate professional standards for respecting advance directives or surrogate decisionmaking. This article challenges the ethical propriety of such institutional mandates and argues that legal protections for conscientious refusal must provide redress for patients who are harmed by care that falls below the prevailing clinical standards.",
keywords = "abortion, Catholicism, law, medicine, professional ethics, religion",
author = "Rich, {Ben A}",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1017/S0963180114000528",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "214--230",
journal = "Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics",
issn = "0963-1801",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Your morality, my mortality

T2 - Conscientious objection and the standard of care

AU - Rich, Ben A

PY - 2015/2/26

Y1 - 2015/2/26

N2 - Recently the scope of protections afforded those healthcare professionals and institutions that refuse to provide certain interventions on the grounds of conscience have expanded, in some instances insulating providers (institutional and individual) from any liability or sanction for harms that patients experience as a result. With the exponential increase in the penetration of Catholic-affiliated healthcare across the country, physicians and nurses who are not practicing Catholics are nevertheless required to execute documents pledging to conform their patient care to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services as a condition of employment or medical staff privileges. In some instances, doing so may result in patient morbidity or mortality or violate professional standards for respecting advance directives or surrogate decisionmaking. This article challenges the ethical propriety of such institutional mandates and argues that legal protections for conscientious refusal must provide redress for patients who are harmed by care that falls below the prevailing clinical standards.

AB - Recently the scope of protections afforded those healthcare professionals and institutions that refuse to provide certain interventions on the grounds of conscience have expanded, in some instances insulating providers (institutional and individual) from any liability or sanction for harms that patients experience as a result. With the exponential increase in the penetration of Catholic-affiliated healthcare across the country, physicians and nurses who are not practicing Catholics are nevertheless required to execute documents pledging to conform their patient care to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services as a condition of employment or medical staff privileges. In some instances, doing so may result in patient morbidity or mortality or violate professional standards for respecting advance directives or surrogate decisionmaking. This article challenges the ethical propriety of such institutional mandates and argues that legal protections for conscientious refusal must provide redress for patients who are harmed by care that falls below the prevailing clinical standards.

KW - abortion

KW - Catholicism

KW - law

KW - medicine

KW - professional ethics

KW - religion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923917693&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923917693&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0963180114000528

DO - 10.1017/S0963180114000528

M3 - Article

C2 - 25719357

AN - SCOPUS:84923917693

VL - 24

SP - 214

EP - 230

JO - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

JF - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

SN - 0963-1801

IS - 2

ER -