Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 18 (1):189-191 (2021)

In a recent article for this journal, Bryan Pilkington makes a number of critical observations about one of our arguments for non-traditional medical conscientious objectors’ duty to refer. Non-traditional conscientious objectors are those professionals who object to indirectly performing actions—like, say, referring to a physician who will perform an abortion. In our response here, we discuss his central objection and clarify our position on the role of value conflicts in non-traditional conscientious objection.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11673-020-10078-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,323
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Shifts in Human Consciousness.Michael A. Ashby - 2021 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 18 (1):1-4.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Conscientious Objection and Systemic Injustice.Michal Pruski - 2020 - Clinical Ethics (3):147775092090345.


Added to PP index

Total views
8 ( #977,558 of 2,448,704 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #224,503 of 2,448,704 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes