Cover Image
QR Code

Mistaking Conscience for Control: Why Institutional Conscience Claims are an Unethical Gambit.

The article critically examines Wasserman et al.'s defense of institutional conscience rights for secular hospitals, which argues that secular healthcare organizations can claim conscience protections to refuse interventions they find objectionable, particularly in cases involving patients who are n...

Full description

Published in:American Journal of Bioethics Vol. 26; no. 7; pp. 67 - 70
Main Authors: Moore, Bryanna, Shaw, Marjorie Hodges
Format: commentary Journal Article
Published: Taylor & Francis Ltd Jul2026
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=194782895&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 194782895
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        15265161
        FKZ
      jtl: American Journal of Bioethics
      issn: 15265161
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2026
      vid: 26
      iid: 7
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        194782895
        194782895
        194782895
        10.1080/15265161.2026.2675913
        194782895
      ppf: 67
      ppct: 3
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Mistaking Conscience for Control: Why Institutional Conscience Claims are an Unethical Gambit.
      aug:
        au:
          Moore, Bryanna
          Shaw, Marjorie Hodges
        affil: University of Rochester
      sug:
        subj:
          Health Facilities Ethical Issues
          Conscience
          Ethics, Organizational
          Health Care Delivery Ethical Issues
          Decision Making
          Organizational Policies
          Patient Rights
          Bioethics
      ab: The article critically examines Wasserman et al.'s defense of institutional conscience rights for secular hospitals, which argues that secular healthcare organizations can claim conscience protections to refuse interventions they find objectionable, particularly in cases involving patients who are neurologically devastated. While acknowledging the authors’ claim that institutions can possess moral commitments akin to conscience, the article raises concerns about the practical and ethical implications of allowing institutions to override patient and family preferences through conscience-based objections. It highlights potential risks such as undermining shared decision-making, privileging clinicians’ values over those of patients and families, and disregarding the diversity of moral perspectives within healthcare teams. The article calls for a more nuanced consideration of institutional moral identity, the complexities of disorders of consciousness, and the importance of patient- and family-centered care in resolving intractable treatment disagreements.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        commentary
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N