Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conscientious Objection, Conflicts of Interests, and Choosing the Right Analogies. A Reply to Pruski

  • Symposium: Conflicts of Interest
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this response paper, we respond to the criticisms that Michal Pruski raised against our article “Beyond Money: Conscientious Objection in Medicine as a Conflict of Interests.” We defend our original position against conscientious objection in healthcare by suggesting that the analogies Pruski uses to criticize our paper miss the relevant point and that some of the analogies he uses and the implications he draws are misplaced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Giubilini, A. 2014. The paradox of conscientious objection and the anemic concept of “conscience”: Downplaying the role of moral integrity in health care. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 24(2): 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giubilini, A., and J. Savulescu. 2020. Beyond money: conscientious objection in medicine as a conflict of interests. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17(2): 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minerva, F. 2015. Conscientious objection in Italy. Journal of Medical Ethics 41(2):170–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruski, M. 2020. Reply to: Beyond money: Conscientious objection in medicine as a conflict of interests. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-10082-z

  • Savulescu, J. 2006. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 332(7536): 294–297.

  • Savulescu, J., and U. Schuklenk. 2017. Doctors have no right to refuse medical assistance in dying, abortion or contraception. Bioethics 31(3): 162–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J., G. Kahane, and C. Gyngell. 2019. From public preferences to ethical policy. Nature Human Behavior 3(12): 1241–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

JS work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (grants n. 203132/Z/16/Z and 104848/Z/14/Z) and by the Australian Research, grant number DP150102068

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, 16-17 St Ebbes Street, Littlegate House, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK

    Alberto Giubilini & Julian Savulescu

  2. Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Julian Savulescu

  3. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

    Julian Savulescu

Authors
  1. Alberto Giubilini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Savulescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Giubilini.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giubilini, A., Savulescu, J. Conscientious Objection, Conflicts of Interests, and Choosing the Right Analogies. A Reply to Pruski. Bioethical Inquiry 18, 181–185 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10089-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10089-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation