Am I my profession's keeper?

Area of Science:

• Ethics
• Philosophy of Law
• Professional Ethics

Background:

• Conscientious refusal involves accepting institutional authority while seeking to opt-out of specific directives.
• Existing ethical frameworks struggle to balance individual conscience with institutional obligations, risking anarchism or totalitarianism.
• The inadequacy of consent-based models for institutional obligations necessitates a new approach.

Purpose of the Study:

• To develop an ethical framework for conscientious refusal that respects both institutional obligations and individual conscience.
• To propose 'Professionalism' as a grounding for professional obligations, offering an alternative to consent-based models.
• To differentiate between institutional injustice and abuse to clarify the limits of obligation.

Main Methods:

• Rejects the consent model for institutional obligations.
• Proposes a model based on intersecting institutional goods and agent autonomy.
• Analyzes the concept of 'Professionalism' to ground professional obligations.
• Distinguishes between institutional injustice and abuse.

Main Results:

• Institutional obligations can be understood through shared goods and intersecting autonomy, not solely consent.
• 'Professionalism' provides a basis for professional duties, allowing for conscientious objection in cases of abuse.
• Directives are obligatory when institutions are merely unjust but not when they are abusive.
• The framework is applied to conscientious refusal, including in reproductive healthcare contexts.

Conclusions:

• A robust ethics of conscientious refusal requires understanding institutional obligations beyond mere consent.
• 'Professionalism' offers a nuanced approach, justifying actions against conscience in limited circumstances while protecting against abuse.
• The distinction between injustice and abuse is crucial for determining the legitimacy of institutional directives and the permissibility of refusal.