An Expressivist Defence of Conscientious Objection in Physician-Assisted Dying

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Medical Law
• Philosophy of Medicine

Background:

• Physician-assisted dying (PAD) legislation faces the "expressivist objection," which posits that eligibility restrictions devalue the lives of terminally or incurably ill patients.
• Existing responses, including abolishing PAD, removing medical criteria, or consequentialist justifications, are deemed insufficient to address this ethical concern.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose a novel framework for addressing the expressivist objection to physician-assisted dying laws.
• To establish conscientious objection for healthcare professionals as a legal right, not merely a permission, within PAD legislation.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of the expressivist objection and its critiques.
• Development of an expressivist rationale for conscientious objection in the context of PAD.
• Examination of legal and ethical implications of conscientious objection protections.

Main Results:

• The study argues that legally protecting conscientious objection can counterbalance the expressive harm of PAD laws.
• Accommodating conscientious objectors actively affirms the value of lives with terminal or incurable conditions.
• This approach grounds conscientious objection as a legal right, addressing moral residue and ethical concerns.

Conclusions:

• Conscientious objection, grounded in an expressivist rationale, provides a principled defense for value pluralism in PAD legislation.
• This framework preserves access to PAD while upholding the dignity and worth of all patients.
• It offers a mechanism to manage ethical complexities without abandoning clinical foundations.