You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
A reasonable objection? Commentary on ‘Further clarity on cooperation and morality’
  1. Trevor G Stammers
  1. Correspondence to Dr Trevor G Stammers, Room E201, St. Mary's University, Waldegrave Road, Twickenham, London TW1 4SX, UK; trevor.stammers{at}stmarys.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103884

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Conscientious objectors to the killing of others—whether through war, abortion, infanticide or euthanasia usually pay quite a high price for taking such a stand, if only in having to bear the opprobrium of opposing voices; some, however, lose their jobs altogether or at least the likelihood of promotion even if they remain in post.1 Leading medical journals,2 ,3 including this one,4 have at least up to now appeared increasingly intolerant in recent years of conscientious objection in medicine.

    The recently published consensus statement of an ethics summit on the topic begins, ‘Healthcare practitioners’ primary obligations are towards their patients, not towards their own personal conscience.’5 This arguably creates a false antithesis from the start. Conscientious objection to killing is primarily about obligations to patients in the minds of most such objectors. The consensus statement goes …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles