Conscientious objection, emergency contraception, and public policy.
Defenders of medical professionals' rights to conscientious objection (CO) regarding emergency contraception (EC) draw an analogy to CO in the military. Such professionals object to EC since it has the possibility of harming zygotic life, yet if we accept this analogy and utilize jurisprudence to frame the associated public policy, those who refuse to dispense EC would not have their objection honored. Legal precedent holds that one must consistently object to all forms of the relevant activity. In the case at hand, then, I argue that these professionals must also oppose morally innocuous practices that may prevent pregnancy after fertilization. These results reveal that such objectors cannot offer a plausible and consistent objection to harming zygotic life. Additionally, there are good reasons to reject the analogy itself. In either case, these findings call into question the case supporting refusals of EC based on scruples.
Department of Philosophy, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, USA. robert.card@oswego.edu
Robert F
RF
Card
D003242:Conscience; D044363:Contraception, Postcoital / Q000941:ethics*; D006282:Health Personnel / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D009014:Morals; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D011640:Public Policy; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence