tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post113863961474289440..comments2024-02-29T01:43:23.900-05:00Comments on Women's Bioethics Blog: Objections to Proposed Conscience Laws: A Right Not to Treat?Linda MacDonald Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02378544626277000243noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post-1138738379750972062006-01-31T15:12:00.000-05:002006-01-31T15:12:00.000-05:00Thank you TT for your response. Of course, once th...Thank you TT for your response. Of course, once the specifics of a particular relationship are made explicit, there might well be the makings of rights and duties. The problem is to establish that provision of the requested services does, indeed, fall within the scope of professional duties/requirements. But in most cases known to me where healthcare workers have claimed to be "conscientious objectors," it isn't clear that they neglected any professional obligations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post-1138736095722436652006-01-31T14:34:00.000-05:002006-01-31T14:34:00.000-05:00Bob: As an employment attorney and judge, I f...Bob:<BR/><BR/> As an employment attorney and judge, I feel compelled to respond to your blog, Bob, in which you legitimately ask “on what theory of law is a refusal to engage in activity one believes immoral an infringement of the rights of others?” Depending upon the relationship – patient/physician, priest/penitent, agent/principal, good samaritan/injured stranger, employer/employee, individuals have common law rights and obligations (developed over years of American jurisprudence) which are imposed by those relationships. It would be negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, dereliction of duty, or even breach of fiduciary duty to impose your own notions of “morality” to exculpate you from duties to treat, care, or counsel which you have undertaken when you enter a given profession or occupation. Bob, your “moral views” do not relieve you of your obligation to act as a “reasonably prudent person.” A reasonably prudent person who knows that their views are at variance with the treatment requirements of a profession should find another career.<BR/><BR/>TTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12625691.post-1138657145133877592006-01-30T16:39:00.000-05:002006-01-30T16:39:00.000-05:00Linda -On what theory of law is a refusal to engag...Linda -<BR/>On what theory of law is a refusal to engage in activity one believes immoral an infringement of the rights of others? This isn't a matter of one person's rights superceding those of another; rather, its a matter of giving equal recognition to the rights of each.<BR/><BR/>Also, refusing to provide a _treatment_ one thinks is immoral is entirely different from refusing to provide a treatment to _persons_ one thinks are immoral. Nobody has proposed a "conscience law" that would allow refusals based on who or what the patient is.<BR/><BR/>If the heavy hand of the law is to be invoked, we'd better at least get the legal parameters right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com