|
|
|
|
|
|
by aidanfindlater
2768 days ago
|
|
|
The actual debate among physicians is about the ethics of denying patients care to which they have a right. There is no law or legal fiat that forces physicians to do things they object to. We are instead held up to a standard of care by our professional regulatory bodies, which define how a physician should act in order to be considered a member of the profession. Most of the rules are around ethical behaviour. With regards to conscientious objection, our professional bodies attempt to balance a patient's right to access timely, effective, and legal treatment against the physicians right to practice their personal ethics. How most bodies reach that balance is to say that physicians are required to provide timely referral to another provider for any service that they are morally objected to. For example, if you don't believe that abortion is right, you are not required to provide them (not by the regulating body and definitely not by the law), but you also can't prevent your patients from getting abortions--you need to refer them to someone who can. We can't force our personal ethics on our patients. The linked article appears to be arguing that doctors should be able to just say no, and thereby prevent someone from accessing the care that they want. Ultimately, the patient is the most important person in medicine, the doctor comes second. This is not the law, this is medical ethics. |
|
|
I agree that is the status quo. The linked article is not necessarily talking about what the medical field currently looks like, but what it may look like over the coming decades. The author is concerned that law may one day override an individual doctor's conscientious objections.
I should also note that author lives and practiced in the U.K. and so if you are writing from an American context (as I am) then it may be that the state of medical ethics is somewhat different over there.