Premium
Conscientious objection and the duty to refer
Author(s) -
Dickens Bernard M.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1002/ijgo.13979
Subject(s) - duty , complicity , conscience , abortion , law , supreme court , medicine , revalidation , legislation , political science , family medicine , nursing , pregnancy , biology , genetics
Abstract Medical associations and leading courts reinforce the duty of physicians who conscientiously object to participating in treatment indicated for their patients to refer them to non‐objecting practitioners. Ethical and legal duties require continuity of care when physicians withdraw from patients’ treatment on grounds of conscience. The duty to refer might affect gynecologists when their patients request for example, contraceptive means, sterilization, abortion, medically assisted reproductive procedures, or gender reassignment. Legislation and leading law courts, notably the UK Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of Colombia, and professional associations such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, have clarified the duty to refer. Physicians are expected to cater their individual conscience to their professional ethical and legal duties, favoring their patients’ choices over their personal objections. Physicians can object to “hands‐on” conduct of procedures they find objectionable, but cannot deny referral on grounds of complicity in what other care providers do.