title: Legal protection and limits of conscientious objection: when conscientious objection is unethical.
abstract: The right to conscientious objection is founded on human rights to act according to individuals' religious and other conscience. Domestic and international human rights laws recognize such entitlements. Healthcare providers cannot be discriminated against, for instance in employment, on the basis of their beliefs. They are required, however, to be equally respectful of rights to conscience of patients and potential patients. They cannot invoke their human rights to violate the human rights of others. There are legal limits to conscientious objection. Laws in some jurisdictions unethically abuse religious conscience by granting excessive rights to refuse care.. In general, healthcare providers owe duties of care to patients that may conflict with their refusal of care on grounds of conscience. The reconciliation of patients' rights to care and providers' rights of conscientious objection is in the duty of objectors in good faith to refer their patients to reasonably accessible providers who are known not to object. Conscientious objection is unethical when healthcare practitioners treat patients only as means to their own spiritual ends. Practitioners who would place their own spiritual or other interests above their patients' healthcare interests have a conflict of interest, which is unethical if not appropriately declared.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Bernard M
authors.initials: BM
authors.lastname: Dickens
mesh_terms: D016265:Conflict of Interest / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003242:Conscience; D006806:Human Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D011287:Prejudice; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*