May 5th 2018

  Buy Issue 3019

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY HECS: hastening our demographic winter

EDITORIAL Liddell is the 'fly in the ointment' of the NEG

AFRICAN AFFAIRS African Continental Free Trade Area ... in the spirit of GATT

CANBERRA OBSERVED Bernardi foray looks to be fading out of view

ENVIRONMENT Is a prolonged freeze on the way for the earth?

MEDICINE NaProTechnology: an ethical alternative in reproductive health

MEDICAL ETHICS Grounds for objection: a declaration on freedom of conscience

OPINION What a republic would really mean for Australia

LAW AND FREEDOM 'Rule of law' does not support exemptions: a reply to Robin Speed

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Saudi Crown Prince challenges Wahhabists

HIGHER EDUCATION Undoing the dis-education of Millennials

GENDER POLITICS Why are patients being denied freedom of choice?

ASIAN HISTORY Jinmen: the forgotten crisis that brought the world to the brink


MUSIC Grammy salute to Elton John: Revealing revisit to the 1970s

CINEMA The Isle of Dogs: Man's best friend in exile

BOOK REVIEW Australia, we need to talk about China

BOOK REVIEW Novelised life a vivid drama of survival



NATIONAL AFFAIRS Committal hearing dismisses main charges against Cardinal Pell

Books promotion page

Grounds for objection: a declaration on freedom of conscience

by David S. Oderberg

News Weekly, May 5, 2018

For most people, the term “conscientious objection” evokes images of Quakers and pacifists registering to avoid military service. Many countries have a long and honourable tradition of accommodating such conscientious objectors. It might not be about bombs and bullets, but health-care professionals often find themselves fighting a conscience battle of their own.

In the UK, Canada, Sweden and other countries, conscientious objectors in health care have found themselves discriminated against in various ways – whether through dismissal, lack of promotion, or more subtle forms of coercion. Most cases involve doctors, nurses or midwives refusing to perform abortion or euthanasia (or to assist with either). Yet these happen, through historical accident, to be the flashpoint of current controversy.

Whatever your personal views on the morality of this or that medical activity or treatment, what is primarily at issue is whether health-care workers should have their freedom of conscience enshrined in law.

You might ask: isn’t it already? Well, there are a number of international treaties and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the UK and Australia and many other countries are party, and in which freedom of conscience (and freedom of religion, to which it is related but not identical) is explicitly recognised.

Yet few countries give citizens – including health workers – the explicit protection to match the warm words of international conventions. In the UK, you would need a microscope to find protection for conscientious objectors in medicine. There are a few piecemeal provisions, such as in the Abortion Act 1967 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, but nothing close to the broad-based protection to which health-care workers, both as citizens and as professionals, are entitled.

The issue is pressing both in theory and practice, which is why I have just launched a Declaration in Support of Conscientious Protection in Health Care, which I hope many health-care workers will sign.

As a matter of moral principle, health-care professionals should not be treated as mere functionaries of the state, doing the state’s bidding – that way lies disaster. Nor should they act as mere health-care valets for their patients, doing whatever they request. Patient-centred care does not mean that.

The question is one of moral and professional integrity. Sometimes a doctor, for example, will consider that a certain treatment violates their sincere, deeply held moral (or religious) convictions. The reason might be, quite simply, that they believe the treatment to be against their patient’s interests. Or they might think that in acting a certain way they would be doing a serious wrong – violating their religious or ethical code.

Rapid advances in medical technology

Practically speaking, the urgency of putting comprehensive conscience protection on the books for health-care workers lies in the rapid advance of medical technology. As new treatments and services become possible, it is a certainty that more and more health-care workers will find themselves confronted by problems of conscientious objection.

Whatever you might think about abortion, or euthanasia, or this or that treatment, consider what is now available or coming down the pike. Today we have transgender surgery, extreme body modification and transcranial direct current stimulation to make us smarter.

On the horizon, we have body implants for interacting with technology, such as implantable microchips for opening doors or buying goods. And it is not inconceivable that in the future we will have human cloning and gene editing for eugenic purposes. The list is only limited by the imagination.

Imagine you are a doctor asked to be involved in one of these treatments – might there be a conscience issue for you? Or is it a case of anything goes? Must doctors and nurses do whatever they are asked to do? If the treatment or service is legal, does that mean freedom of conscience goes out the window?

For my part – and that of the many people who agree – freedom of conscience does not mean denying legal treatment to anyone. But the legal right to a certain treatment does not equate to the right to have that treatment from any particular person. A general opt-out for health-care workers, where their very moral integrity and ethical principles are at stake, can co-exist with full and fair access to all legal services.

On March 23, 2018, the House of Lords entered the committee stage to debate further the Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill, sponsored by Baroness O’Loan. The Bill’s scope is limited to current ethical flashpoints regarding the beginning and end of life. It is not broad based – and one could hope for more – but it is an important step in redressing the imbalance and injustice facing health-care workers with conscientious objections. It deserves our support.

Perhaps the UK might lead the way in developing legislation protecting freedom of conscience in health care. If we do not act now, then when is the right time?

David S. Oderberg is the Melbourne-born Professor of Philosophy at the University of Reading in the UK. This article first appeared online at The Conversation website on March 22, 2018.

Read Dr Oderberg’s Declaration in Support of Conscientious Protection in Health Care.

All you need to know about
the wider impact of transgenderism on society.
TRANSGENDER: one shade of grey, 353pp, $39.99

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

COVER STORY Wildfires: Lessons from the past not yet learnt

HUMAN RIGHTS A Magnitsky-style law for Australia?

GENDER POLITICS In trans Newspeak, parental consent is a 'hurdle'

EDITORIAL America 'resets' foreign policy on China and Russia

CANBERRA OBSERVED After the fires, we still need an economy and to power it

LAW AND SOCIETY Cardinal Pell and the Appeal Court judges

HUMOUR The MacStuttles probe

© Copyright 2017
Last Modified:
April 4, 2018, 6:45 pm