Open AccessConscientious Objection, Not Refusal: The Power of a Word
Author(s) -
Cynthia Jones-Nosacek
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
linacre quarterly/the linacre quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.148
H-Index - 9
eISSN - 2050-8549
pISSN - 0024-3639
DOI - 10.1177/00243639211008271
Subject(s) - conscientious objector , denial , presumption , miller , undoing , health care , action (physics) , law , abortion , psychology , sociology , medicine , political science , psychoanalysis , pregnancy , ecology , physics , genetics , spanish civil war , quantum mechanics , biology
Conscientious objection (CO) in medicine grew out of the need to protect healthcare providers who objected to performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision in the 1970s which has since over time expanded to include sterilization, contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and end-of-life issues. Since 2006, there has been a growing amount of published literature arguing for the denial of CO. Over the last three years, there has also been an increase in calling this conscientious refusal. This article will argue that the term conscientious objection is more accurate than conscientious refusal because those who object are not refusing to provide care. CO also emphasizes that there are reasoned arguments behind one's decision not to perform certain actions because of one's own principles and values.