A consequentialist case for permitting conscientious objection in healthcare.

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Medical Ethics
• Healthcare Policy

Background:

• Conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare is debated, particularly among consequentialist ethicists.
• Julian Savulescu and Udo Schüklenk advocate the 'incompatibility thesis,' denying healthcare professionals CO rights.
• Existing compromise positions, like Brock's 'conventional compromise,' rely on referral, which presents challenges.

Purpose of the Study:

• To argue for a consequentialist compromise on conscientious objection in healthcare.
• To propose an alternative to existing compromise models, specifically addressing the limitations of referral.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation analyzing consequentialist ethics and CO.
• Critique of the 'incompatibility thesis' and Brock's 'conventional compromise.'
• Development of a novel system for managing CO based on regional registers.

Main Results:

• The incompatibility thesis is challenged from a consequentialist perspective.
• Referral is identified as a problematic mechanism for managing CO.
• A region-based register system is proposed as a superior consequentialist approach.

Conclusions:

• Consequentialists should support a nuanced approach to healthcare CO, allowing it under specific conditions.
• A system of regional registers offers a practical and ethically sound method for managing CO.
• This model enhances patient access to care while respecting healthcare professionals' conscientious beliefs.