Legal Briefing: Conscience Clauses and Conscientious Refusal

Thaddeus Mason Pope

Hamline University - School of Law; Queensland University of Technology - Australian Health Law Research Center; Saint Georges University; Alden March Bioethics Institute

August 3, 2010

Journal of Clinical Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 163, 2010

Since 2009, Professor Pope has authored a quarterly “Legal Briefing” column for the Journal of Clinical Ethics. Each briefing comprehensively reviews legal developments concerning a particular issue in clinical bioethics. The Journal of Clinical Ethics owns the exclusive copyright to distribute the full-text content.

This issue’s “Legal Briefing” column covers legal developments pertaining to conscience clauses and conscientious refusal. Not only has this topic been the subject of recent articles in this journal, but it has also been the subject of numerous public and professional discussions. Over the past several months, conscientious refusal disputes have had an unusually high profile not only in courthouses, but also in legislative and regulatory halls across the United States.

Healthcare providers’ own moral beliefs have been obstructing and are expected to increasingly obstruct patients’ access to medical services. For example, some providers, on ethical or moral grounds, have denied: (1) sterilization procedures to pregnant patients, (2) pain medications in end-of-life situations, and (3) information about emergency contraception to rape victims. On the other hand, many healthcare providers have been forced to provide medical treatment that is inconsistent with their moral beliefs.

There are two fundamental types of conscientious objection laws. First, there are laws that permit healthcare workers to refuse providing – on ethical, moral, or religious grounds – healthcare services that they might otherwise have a legal or employer-mandated obligation to provide. Second, there are laws directed at forcing healthcare workers to provide services to which they might have ethical, moral, or religious objections. Both types of laws are rarely comprehensive, but instead target: (1) certain types of healthcare providers, (2) specific categories of healthcare services, (3) specific patient circumstances, and (4) certain conditions under which a right or obligation is triggered.

For the sake of clarity, I have grouped recent legal developments concerning conscientious refusal into eight categories: (1) abortion: right to refuse; (2) abortion: duty to provide; (3) contraception: right to refuse; (4) contraception: duty to provide; (5) sterilization: right to refuse; (6) fertility, HIV, vaccines, counseling; (7) end-of-life measures: right to refuse; and (8) comprehensive laws: right to refuse.

Keywords: conscience clauses, conscientious refusal, healthcare providers, medical ethics, healthcare, health law, abortion, contraception

JEL Classification: K32

Not Available For Download

Date posted: August 5, 2010 ; Last revised: July 1, 2014

Suggested Citation

Pope, Thaddeus Mason, Legal Briefing: Conscience Clauses and Conscientious Refusal (August 3, 2010). Journal of Clinical Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 163, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1652885

Contact Information

Thaddeus Mason Pope (Contact Author)
Hamline University - School of Law ( email )
875 Summit Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55105
United States
651-695-7661 (Phone)
901-202-7549 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.thaddeuspope.com
Queensland University of Technology - Australian Health Law Research Center ( email )
2 George Street
Brisbane, Queensland 4000
Saint Georges University ( email )
West Indies
HOME PAGE: http://www.thaddeuspope.com
Alden March Bioethics Institute ( email )
47 New Scotland Ave
MC 153
Albany, NY 12208
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.thaddeuspope.com
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 649