Conscientious Objection in bioethics

Abstract

Conscientious objection was historically preceded by civil disobedience, which consists in the refusal to obey a law considered illegitimate as perceived by the dissenter’s convictions. With the advent of bioethical issues related to the extremes of life, laws are anticipated, or have been actually passed, that concede the right to claim services and procedures that individual health-care professionals might refuse to honor on the basis of their profound and unshakable beliefs, even if they eventually consider the law as reasonable. The opposition to honor a lawful right is known as conscientious objection, which in itself has been accepted as a legitimate expression of autonomy and freedom of belief, provided it is coherently, consistently and publicly expressed. The symmetry between claiming the right to receive a lawful procedure, and the political right to seek exception to perform acts that contravene one’s beliefs is valid as long as the objector’s denial allows the rightful claimant to seek alternative solutions. If such alternatives are not available or are denied by the objector, the requesting rights holder will suffer harm. The balance between the two competing rights is therefore lost, for the objector forfeits his rights when his denial not only disobeys the law, but also harms the unmet request of the rightful petitioner