Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (1):75 – 91 (2004)

John K. Davis
California State University, Fullerton
Patients sometimes request procedures their doctors find morally objectionable. Do doctors have a right of conscientious refusal? I argue that conscientious refusal is justified only if the doctor's refusal does not make the patient worse off than she would have been had she gone to another doctor in the first place. From this approach I derive conclusions about the duty to refer and facilitate transfer, whether doctors may provide 'moral counseling,' whether doctors are obligated to provide objectionable procedures when no other doctor is available, why the moral consensus among doctors seems relevant even though it does not determine whether something is morally acceptable, and whether doctors should stay out of fields whose standard procedures they find morally unacceptable.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1076/jmep.
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,178
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

When Should Conscientious Objection Be Accepted.Morten Magelssen - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (1):18-21.
The Importance of Clear and Careful Thinking in Clinical Ethics.J. Clint Parker - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (1):1-16.
Futility, Conscientious Refusal, and Who Gets to Decide.J. K. Davis - 2008 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (4):356-373.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
69 ( #156,913 of 2,455,106 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,153 of 2,455,106 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes