Institutional Conscientious Objection is Not the Answer.
This article critically examines the justification for recognizing institutional conscience rights—claims based on deeply held moral values—specifically for secular healthcare institutions refusing treatment requests for neurologically devastated patients, defined as those permanently unconscious or...
| Published in: | American Journal of Bioethics Vol. 26; no. 7; pp. 59 - 63 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | commentary questions and answers 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=194782903&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 194782903 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: 194782903 194782903 194782903 10.1080/15265161.2026.2675922 194782903 ppf: 59 ppct: 4 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Institutional Conscientious Objection is Not the Answer. aug: au: Wicclair, Mark affil: University of Pittsburgh sug: subj: Conscience Hospitals Ethics, Organizational Philosophy, Medical Ethics, Medical Brain Death Persistent Vegetative State Medical Futility ab: This article critically examines the justification for recognizing institutional conscience rights—claims based on deeply held moral values—specifically for secular healthcare institutions refusing treatment requests for neurologically devastated patients, defined as those permanently unconscious or declared dead by neurological criteria. The authors argue that secular institutions, like religious ones, can experience a form of moral harm analogous to individual clinicians’ conscience-based distress, warranting accommodation of their refusals. However, the article raises concerns about whether institutional conscience claims provide clear, consistent standards, potentially deny surrogates a fair hearing, and risk limiting patient access to legally accepted care. It also highlights the broader implications of legitimizing institutional conscientious objection, which could complicate healthcare delivery and patient access, emphasizing the need for carefully defined constraints to balance institutional conscience with patient rights. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: commentary questions and answers Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|