Voices of discontent? Conscience, compromise, and assisted dying

If some form of assisted dying is to be legalised, we are likely to hear voices of discontent, not least from the medical profession and some of its members, who might be expected to provide the service. The profession generally favours a position of opposition, premised on an ethic of 'caring not killing', which might be said to convey its 'professional conscience'. There will, of course, also be individual conscientious objectors. In this article, we initially explore the nature and sources of conscience and we argue that conscience does merit respect. We also recognise that professionals, qua professionals, are bound to serve their patients, some of whom will want (and may be entitled to) that which their doctors do not wish to provide. Reflecting on the different values in issue, we suggest that there is a case for principled compromise which would afford professionals a limited right to conscientiously object, while also protecting patients. We then relate these reflections to assisted dying specifically. In the absence of any definitive steer from the purported integrity of medicine, we suspect that the profession could adopt a neutral stance on this divisive issue. We nevertheless anticipate individual objections if the law does move to embrace assisted dying, and we argue that such objections should be respected, according to the terms of the compromise model we defend.