As readers of SHS and my other writings know, I think one of the big
coming fights in bioethics will be over “medical conscience,” that is,
efforts to force Hippocratic and/or pro life doctors to participate in
procedures or treatments that involve the taking of human life. Since
the ethics of the medical system have diverged sharply from those of
the Hippocratic Oath, I believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists and
other medical professionals need to be protected if they wish to adhere
to the traditional life-affirming values of medicine–with conditions,
including that life sustaining treatment can’t be refused, refusals
can’t be based on discrimination (e.g., refusing to treat a smoker or a
gay person because they smoke or are gay), and that patients need to be
told ahead of time that their doctor won’t do certain things, e.g.
abortion, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell treatments (should they
ever become part of clinical practice).
Now the Council of Europe has adopted just such a medical conscience
policy. From the resolution, “The Right to Conscientious Objection in
Lawful Medical Care:”
Resolution 1763 (2010)[1]
1. No person,
hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated
against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate,
assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human
miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a
human foetus or embryo, for any reason.
2. The
Parliamentary Assembly emphasises the need to affirm the right of
conscientious objection together with the responsibility of the state
to ensure that patients are able to access lawful medical care in a
timely manner. The Assembly is concerned that the unregulated use of
conscientious objection may disproportionately affect women, notably
those having low incomes or living in rural areas.
3. In the vast
majority of Council of Europe member states, the practice of
conscientious objection is adequately regulated. There is a
comprehensive and clear legal and policy framework governing the
practice of conscientious objection by healthcare providers ensuring
that the interests and rights of individuals seeking legal medical
services are respected, protected and fulfilled.
4. In view of
member states’ obligation to ensure access to lawful medical care and
to protect the right to health, as well as the obligation to ensure
respect for the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion of
healthcare providers, the Assembly invites Council of Europe member
states to develop comprehensive and clear regulations that define and
regulate conscientious objection with regard to health and medical
services, which:
4.1. guarantee the right to
conscientious objection in relation to participation in the procedure
in question;
4.2. ensure that patients are
informed of any objection in a timely manner and referred to another
healthcare provider;
4.3. ensure that patients receive
appropriate treatment, in particular in cases of emergency.
The area with which I disagree about this is the duty to refer.
If the duty means cooperating when a patient obtains another physician
in transferring records, etc., then absolutely. But if it means
procuring a doctor to do the procedure that you don’t wish to
do–no. That makes the doctor fully complicit in the act and
obviates the point of the protection.
Still, this is a good step in the right direction. I hope that
individual European nations will heed this call and that the USA will
also understand the importance of maintaining a Hippocratic medical
sector.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith