Philo 13 (2):167-184 (2010)
AbstractIn this paper I uncover and critically analyze a methodological assumption in the literature on conscientious refusals in health care. The assumption is what I call the “Priority of Conscience Principle,” which says the following: to determine the moral status of any act of conscientious refusal, it is first necessary to determine the nature and value of conscience. I argue that it is not always necessary to discuss conscience in the debate on conscientious refusals, and that discussing conscience is even problematic, since it can lead authors to beg the question
Similar books and articles
Conscience and Conscientious Actions in the Context of MCOs.James F. Childress - 1997 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (4):403-411.
Conscientious Refusal by Physicians and Pharmacists: Who is Obligated to Do What, and Why?Dan W. Brock - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (3):187-200.
What is Conscience and Why is Respect for It so Important?Daniel P. Sulmasy - 2008 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (3):135-149.
Are the Judgments of Conscience Unreasonable?Edward Andrew & Peter Lindsay - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):235-254.
Conscientious Objections in Pharmacy Practice in Great Britain.Zuzana Deans - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (1):48-57.
William Ames's Calvinist Ambiguity Over Freedom of Conscience.James Calvin Davis - 2005 - Journal of Religious Ethics 33 (2):333 - 355.
Abortion: At the Still Point of the Turning Conscientious Objection Debate. [REVIEW]Elliott Louis Bedford - 2012 - HEC Forum 24 (2):63-82.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Tekemättä jättämiset vastarintana.Kaisa Kärki - 2019 - In Outi Autti & Lehtola Veli-Pekka (eds.), Hiljainen Vastarinta. Tampere, Finland: pp. 27-54.