Conscientious Objection for Catholic Healthcare Professionals

Abstract

This article maintains the legitimacy of religiously-based conscientious objection to putatively medical interventions [RCO]. In particular, it considers the RCO status of Catholic medical professionals. It begins with a consideration of the aptness of speaking in terms of “conscientious objection”—a contested usage—rather than “refusal of medical care.” It argues on behalf of “conscientious objection” as the appropriate terminology. It places the debate concerning RCO within the larger context of professional medical autonomy. Thereby, it normalizes RCO. Noting the co-incidence of professional, ethical, and religious conscientiousness, it proposes that justifiable objection principally concerns interventions, not individuals. The article establishes that RCO extends to referrals, not only to the objectionable intervention. Relying on the traditional distinction between material and formal cooperation, the article argues that RCO does not extend to all acts that implicate one in the relevant objectionable act. For example, while forwarding medical records to a fellow professional who acquiesces to the patient’s objectionable request may further that goal, one who objects may in good conscience forward the materials. The article concludes noting that RCO imposes obligations upon the professional to notify relevant parties concerning the objection, disclose RCO status to patients, not to abandon the same, and to preserve patient-confidentiality.