The Moral Asymmetry of Conscientious Provision and Conscientious Refusal: Insights from Oppression and Allyship

Richard S Matthews*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Conscientious refusal involves decisions by healthcare workers, on grounds of their conscience, to refuse to provide legal, professionally permissible and safe health interventions to patients. Conscientious provision involves decisions by healthcare workers, also on grounds of conscience, to provide safe and beneficial healthcare to patients that is prohibited by law or policy. Some bioethicists believe that the moral issues governing both are identical, and that if one permits conscientious refusals, one should also permit conscientious provisions. This article argues that this assumption of symmetry is incorrect. To demonstrate this, it does the following: first, it establishes why it matters that we understand the difference between them; second, it describes three recent cases of conscientious provision in Canadian healthcare to help characterize its nature and scope; third, it situates these cases in a socio-economically nuanced analysis of the role of the conscientious provider under conditions or privilege and oppression; finally, it applies insights from the cases and the intersectional analysis to common criticisms of conscientious refusal to reinforce the fundamental asymmetries between conscientious refusal and conscientious provision.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)49-72
Number of pages24
JournalInternational Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 May 2024

Cite this