This study is an investigation of the views of medical students (N=15) and physicians (N=14), in Turkey, on conscientious objection through elaboration on their experiences in medical practice within the framework of conscientious objection, and evaluation of the data from an ethical perspective. The data received from in‐depth interviews were evaluated by using the thematic content analysis method. They were then divided into contexts and themes as follows: “Refusal to provide healthcare services,” “scope of conscientious objection,” and “impact of conscientious (...) objection (in case of legal entitlement).” The opinions of our research participants suggest that conscientious objection has become widespread in medical practices. It is argued that the tendency of healthcare providers and patients to find temporary resolutions to ethical dilemmas only complicates such resolutions. It is imperative, therefore, to set a rational limit on conscientious objection so as to prevent the adoption of an attitude shaped completely by the personal beliefs of the physician or the patient. (shrink)

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to assess whether a physician is inclined to take conscientious objection when asked to perform medical services that clash with his/her personal beliefs. The scale, named the Inclination toward Conscientious Objection Scale, was developed for physicians in Turkey. Face validity, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity of the scale were evaluated in the development process. While measuring criterion-related validity, Student’s t-test was used to identify the groups that did and (...) did not show inclination toward conscientious objection. There were 126 items in the initial item pool, which reduced to 42 after content validity evaluation by five experts. After necessary adjustments, the scale was administered to 224 participants. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to investigate factor structure. The split-half method was employed to assess scale reliability, and the Spearman-Brown coefficient was calculated. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was used to estimate the internal consistency of the scale items. The distinctiveness of the items was evaluated using Student’s t-test. The lower and upper 27% groups were compared to assess the distinctiveness of the scale. The items were loaded on four factors that explained 85.46% of the variance: “Conscientious Objection – Medical Profession Relationship,” “Conscientious Objection in Medical Education and Medical Practice,” “Conscientious Objection with regard to the Concept of Rights” and “Conscientious Objection – Physician’s Professional Identity and Role.” The final scale has 40 items, and was found to be valid and reliable with high internal consistency. (shrink)