title: Freedom of conscience and health care in the United States of america: the conflict between public health and religious liberty in the patient protection and affordable care act.
abstract: The recent confirmation of the constitutionality of the Obama administration's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) by the US Supreme Court has brought to the fore long-standing debates over individual liberty and religious freedom. Advocates of personal liberty are often critical, particularly in the USA, of public health measures which they deem to be overly restrictive of personal choice. In addition to the alleged restrictions of individual freedom of choice when it comes to the question of whether or not to purchase health insurance, opponents to the PPACA also argue that certain requirements of the Act violate the right to freedom of conscience by mandating support for services deemed immoral by religious groups. These issues continue the long running debate surrounding the demands of religious groups for special consideration in the realm of health care provision. In this paper I examine the requirements of the PPACA, and the impacts that religious, and other ideological, exemptions can have on public health, and argue that the exemptions provided for by the PPACA do not in fact impose unreasonable restrictions on religious freedom, but rather concede too much and in so doing endanger public health and some important individual liberties.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy, The University of Birmingham, UK. pgw025@bham.ac.uk
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: West-Oram
mesh_terms: D002755:Choice Behavior; D003242:Conscience; D005610:Freedom; D006801:Humans; D058991:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012068:Religion and Medicine; D060728:Reproductive Health / Q000191:economics; D013660:Taxes; D014481:United States; D014611:Vaccination / Q000191:economics
references.citation: J Med Philos. 1999 Jun;24(3):207-23
references.pmid: 10472812
references.citation: Womens Health Issues. 2010 Jan-Feb;20(1):7-11
references.pmid: 20123171
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Dec;30(12):2437-48
references.pmid: 22072063
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 1991 Jan;163(1):12-6
references.pmid: 1984459
references.citation: Lancet. 2006 Nov 25;368(9550):1908-19
references.pmid: 17126724
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Dec;29(12):2323-34
references.pmid: 21088012
references.citation: South Med J. 2008 Jul;101(7):703-6
references.pmid: 18580731
references.citation: Fam Plann Perspect. 1977 Nov-Dec;9(6):266-8, 273
references.pmid: 923756
references.citation: Arch Dis Child. 2002 Jul;87(1):22-5
references.pmid: 12089115
references.citation: Health Care Anal. 1999;7(4):393-411
references.pmid: 10787800
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 1979 Sep;69(9):929-30
references.pmid: 382879
references.citation: Emerg Infect Dis. 1998 Oct-Dec;4(4):539-50
references.pmid: 9866730
references.citation: Br Med Bull. 2005 Jun 14;73-74:17-24
references.pmid: 15956357
references.citation: Fam Plann Perspect. 1980 May-Jun;12(3):120-3, 127-30
references.pmid: 6995147
references.citation: Public Health Rep. 1993 Jul-Aug;108(4):436-9
references.pmid: 8341776
references.citation: JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50
references.pmid: 11135778
references.citation: JAMA. 2002 Jun 26;287(24):3245-8
references.pmid: 12076221
references.citation: Scand J Public Health. 2004;32(3):172-8
references.pmid: 15204177
references.citation: JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):47-53
references.pmid: 10404911
references.citation: Nature. 1985 Nov 28-Dec 4;318(6044):323-9
references.pmid: 3906406
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2011 Aug;101(8):1437-43
references.pmid: 21680916
references.citation: Fordham Urban Law J. 2002 Nov;30(1):221-44
references.pmid: 15868671
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2005 May;95(5):778-83
references.pmid: 15855452