Rights of Conscience vs. Peer-Driven Medical Ethics: ACOG and Abortion

LIFE & LEARNING XVIII, PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH UNIVERSITY FACULTY FOR LIFE CONFERENCE AT MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 2008, Joseph W. Koterski, S.J., ed., University Faculty for Life, 2011

33 Pages Posted: 30 Jul 2011

See all articles by Lynn D. Wardle

Lynn D. Wardle

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School

Abstract

In 2007, the Ethics Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published an opinion prescribing the limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. However, as this article demonstrates, the opinion was heavily slanted in favor of the patient’s right to receive reproductive procedures such as abortion or contraceptives. ACOG is unwilling to acknowledge the full power of healthcare providers’ right of conscience, and it fails to articulate reasonable alternatives when conflict arises. The language of the opinion is prejudicial, flawed, and incomplete. When compared with early American constitutional history, the erroneous reasoning of the opinion becomes even more apparent. There is ample evidence provided by many founding members of the United States about the important and essential place that rights of conscience have been afforded in the Constitution. Healthcare providers’ right of conscience must be respected in society.

Keywords: Right of Conscience, Abortion, Healthcare Provider

Suggested Citation

Wardle, Lynn D., Rights of Conscience vs. Peer-Driven Medical Ethics: ACOG and Abortion. LIFE & LEARNING XVIII, PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH UNIVERSITY FACULTY FOR LIFE CONFERENCE AT MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 2008, Joseph W. Koterski, S.J., ed., University Faculty for Life, 2011, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1898419

Lynn D. Wardle (Contact Author)

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School ( email )

518 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
United States
801-422-2617 (Phone)
801-422-0391 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
53
Abstract Views
686
Rank
597,623
PlumX Metrics