Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The uneasy (and changing) relationship of health care and religion in our legal system

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article provides a brief introduction to the interplay between law and religion in the health care context. First, I address the extent to which the commitments of a faith tradition may be written into laws that bind all citizens, including those who do not share those commitments. Second, I discuss the law’s accommodation of the faith commitments of individual health care providers—hardly a static inquiry, as the degree of accommodation is increasingly contested. Third, I expand the discussion to include institutional health care providers, arguing that the legal system’s resistance to accommodating the morally distinct identities of institutional providers reflects a short-sighted view of the liberty of conscience. Finally, I offer some tentative thoughts about why these dynamics become even more complicated in the context of Islamic health care providers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

  2. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

  3. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

  4. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

  5. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

  6. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003).

  7. The White House. 2009. Signing of stem cell executive order and scientific integrity presidential memorandum. Official press release, March 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-President-As-Prepared-for-Delivery-Signing-of-Stem-Cell-Executive-Order-and-Scientific-Integrity-Presidential-Memorandum/. Accessed March 15, 2013.

  8. Vischer, Robert K. 2006. Conscience in context: Pharmacist rights and the eroding moral marketplace. Stanford Law and Policy Review 17(1): 83–119.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 524 F. Supp.2d 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2007).

  10. Vischer, Robert K. 2010. Pharmacies. In Conscience and the common good: reclaiming the space between person and state, ed. Robert K. Vischer, 155–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Donnellan, Eithne. 2010. Infertility treatment refusal led to inquiry. The Irish Times, April 15. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0415/1224268372829.html.

  12. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior Court, 189 P.3d 959 (2008).

  13. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Ensuring that department of health and human services funds do not support coercive or discriminatory policies or practices in violation of federal law. 45 C.F.R. 88. RIN 0991-AB48. http://hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2013.

  14. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. Regulation for the enforcement of federal health care provider conscience protection laws. 45 C.F.R. 88. Federal Register 76(36): 9968-9977. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-23/pdf/2011-3993.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2013.

  15. Stein, Rob. 2011. Obama administration replaces controversial “conscience” regulation for health-care workers. Washington Post, February 18.

  16. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

  17. Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, No. 2005-CH-000495 (Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, 2011).

  18. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

  19. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

  20. Editorial, moralists at the pharmacy. 2005. New York Times, April 3: 12.

  21. Singleton, Kirsten. 2005. Governor’s directive to pharmacists gets support at statehouse rally. State Journal-Register May 17: 28.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Office of the Governor, Illinois. 2005. Governor Blagojevich moves to make emergency contraceptives rule permanent. Official press release, April 18. http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=3862. Accessed March 15, 2013.

  23. Forster, Stacy. 2004. Women’s health debate intensifies. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Apr. 21: B1.

  24. Stein, Rob. 2008. “Pro-life” drugstores market beliefs. Washington Post, June 16: A1.

  25. American Civil Liberties Union. 2007. Religious refusals and reproductive rights: accessing birth control at the pharmacy. http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/reproductiverights/finalreport.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2013.

  26. Pear, Robert. 2011. Insurance coverage for contraception is required. New York Times, August 2: 10.

  27. Pear, Robert. 2012. U.S. Clarifies policy on birth control for religious groups. New York Times, March 16: 14.

  28. President’s Council on Bioethics. 2008. Conscience in the practice of the health professions. Transcript of remarks by Farr Curlin, September 11. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/transcripts/sept08/session3.html. Accessed March 15, 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of St. Thomas School of Law, 1000 LaSalle Ave., Minneapolis, MN, 55403, USA

    Robert K. Vischer

Authors
  1. Robert K. Vischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert K. Vischer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vischer, R.K. The uneasy (and changing) relationship of health care and religion in our legal system. Theor Med Bioeth 34, 161–170 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-013-9248-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-013-9248-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation