Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Conscience protection in Europe

By Rob Vischer

Matt Schmitz provides a helpful update on disturbing developments in Europe regarding conscience protection for health care providers.  I have not yet read the proposed resolution to be considered this week by the Council of Europe, and I'm not sure that I will agree fully with Matt's assessment (e.g., I don't think that public disclosure of conscientious objector status is per se unreasonable -- I have recommended such a measure in the past -- though I agree that a government registry of objectors could be put to troubling uses).  He is right, though, to raise some big red flags.  The resolution's denial of conscience protection for hospitals is downright maddening; though hospitals and other corporate bodies do not exercise a right of conscience, they are essential venues for the formation, expression, and exercise of conscience.  (See, e.g., here.)

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/10/conscience-protection-in-europe.html

Vischer, Rob | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e2013488037449970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conscience protection in Europe :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I do think medical personnel have a right to refuse to do certain procedures that they find immoral. I also think a hospital or clinic that hires doctors does have a right to know which of them will object to performing certain procedures. Also, I think a patient who goes to a doctor or a hospital has a right to know what the doctor or hospital will or will not do. I think it should not be left to chance whether one woman who is raped winds up at an emergency room that does provide emergency contraception, while a second woman winds up at an emergency room that does not. How to allow for conscientious objection on the one hand and the legitimate expectations of patients on the other seems very complex.

I always wonder where the right to conscientious objection ends and the obligation to put oneself in a position that does not present one with a problem begins. For example, I once worked with a major printing company (I work in the book publishing industry) that occasionally printed the magazine Playboy. It was the company policy that no one who objected was required to work on the shifts during which the magazine was printed, and work schedules were rearranged to accommodate the conscientious objectors. All well and good. This was primarily a book printing company, and the Playboy printing was an occasional thing. But suppose someone who has a career in printing takes a job for a printer that has as 25% of its business, or 50% of its business, or 75% of its business the printing of "adult" material? Is it reasonable for someone to take a job there and then demand that the company accommodate his refusal to work shifts when material he finds objectionable is printed? I don't think so.

I think it is interesting to look at rights of conscience outside the medical field occasionally, although of course this thread is about medicine.