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

Conscientious Objection and Other Motivations for Refusal to Treat in Hastened Death: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Conscientious objection (CO) in the context of health care arises when a health care professional (HCP) refuses to participate in a certain procedure because it is not compatible with their ethical or moral principles. Refusal to treat in health care includes, in addition to CO, other factors that may lead the HCP not to want to participate in a certain procedure. Therefore, we can say that CO is a form of refusal of treatment based on conscience. Hastened death has become an increasingly reality around the world, being a procedure in which not all HCPs are willing to participate. There are several factors that can condition the HCPs' refusal to treat in this scenario.

METHODS

With the aim of identifying these factors, we performed a systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines. On 1 October 2022, we searched for relevant articles on Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus databases.

RESULTS

From an initial search of 693 articles, 12 were included in the final analysis. Several motivations that condition refusal to treat were identified, including legal, technical, social, and CO. Three main motivations for CO were also identified, namely religious, moral/secular, and emotional/psychological motivations.

CONCLUSIONS

We must adopt an understanding approach respecting the position of each HCP, avoiding judgmental and discriminatory positions, although we must ensure also that patients have access to care. The identification of these motivations may permit solutions that, while protecting the HCPS' position, may also mitigate potential problems concerning patients' access to this type of procedure.

Tolerance, Professional Judgment, and the Discretionary Space of the Physician

Arguments against physicians’ claims of a right to refuse to provide tests or treatments to patients based on conscientious objection often depend on two premises that are rarely made explicit. The first is that the protection of religious liberty (broadly construed) should be limited to freedom of worship, assembly, and belief. The second is that because professions are licensed by the state, any citizen who practices a licensed profession is required to provide all the goods and services determined by the profession to fall within the scope of practice of that professional specialty and permitted by the state, regardless of any personal religious, philosophical, or moral objection. In this article, I argue that these premises ought to be rejected, and therefore the arguments that depend on them ought also to be rejected. The first premise is incompatible with Locke’s conception of tolerance, which recognizes that fundamental, self-identifying beliefs affect public as well as private acts and deserve a broad measure of tolerance. The second premise unduly (and unrealistically) narrows the discretionary space of professional practice to an extent that undermines the contributions professions ought to be permitted to make to the common good. Tolerance for conscientious objection in the public sphere of professional practice should not be unlimited, however, and the article proposes several commonsense, Lockean limits to tolerance for physician claims of conscientious objection.

Global Health Solidarity

For much of the 20th century, vulnerability to deprivations of health has often been defined by geographical and economic factors. Those in wealthy, usually ‘Northern’ and ‘Western’, parts of the world have benefited from infrastructures, and accidents of geography and climate, which insulate them from many serious threats to health. Conversely, poorer people are typically exposed to more threats to health, and have lesser access to the infrastructures needed to safeguard them against the worst consequences of such exposure. However, in recent years the increasingly globalized nature of the world’s economy, society and culture, combined with anthropogenic climate change and the evolution of antibiotic resistance, has begun to shift the boundaries that previously defined the categories of person threatened by many exogenous threats to health. In doing so, these factors expose both new and forgotten similarities between persons, and highlight the need for global cooperative responses to the existential threats posed by climate change and the evolution of antimicrobial resistance. In this article, we argue that these emerging health threats, in demonstrating the similarities that exist between even distant persons, provides a catalyst for global solidarity, which justifies, and provides motivation for, the establishment of solidaristic, cooperative global health infrastructures.