Conscientious Objections and Two Ways of Reconciliation

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Moral Philosophy

Background:

• Conscientious objection in bioethics is often framed by absolutism, the incompatibility thesis, or the compromise account.
• The compromise account seeks to reconcile absolutism and the incompatibility thesis, with two interpretations: prima facie and all-things-considered rights to conscientious objection.

Purpose of the Study:

• To differentiate between virtue-related and impermissible wrongdoings in the context of conscientious objection.
• To advocate for a justified conscientious objection grounded in the right to commit virtue-related wrongdoings.
• To challenge existing frameworks of conscientious objection and the associated duty to refer.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of existing bioethical frameworks for conscientious objection.
• Argumentative exploration of the concepts of prima facie and all-things-considered rights.
• Ethical reasoning to distinguish between types of wrongdoing.

Main Results:

• The article rejects both absolutism and the incompatibility thesis.
• It posits that the all-things-considered right to conscientious objection is superior to the prima facie right.
• It concludes that a duty to refer is not necessitated by conscientious objection.

Conclusions:

• Conscientious objection can be justified based on practitioners' right to commit virtue-related wrongdoings.
• The all-things-considered right to conscientious objection provides a more robust framework than the prima facie right.
• The duty to refer following conscientious objection should be eliminated.