Which Legal Approaches Help Limit Harms to Patients From Clinicians' Conscience-Based Refusals?

Rachel Kogan; Katherine L Kraschel; Claudia E Haupt

doi:10.1001/amajethics.2020.209

Which Legal Approaches Help Limit Harms to Patients From Clinicians' Conscience-Based Refusals?

AMA J Ethics. 2020 Mar 1;22(3):E209-216. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2020.209.

Authors

Rachel Kogan, Katherine L Kraschel¹, Claudia E Haupt²

Affiliations

¹ Lecturer in law and the executive director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut.
² Associate professor of law and political science at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.

PMID: 32220267
DOI: 10.1001/amajethics.2020.209

Abstract

This article canvasses laws protecting clinicians' conscience and focuses on dilemmas that occur when a clinician refuses to perform a procedure consistent with the standard of care. In particular, the article focuses on patients' experience with a conscientiously objecting clinician at a secular institution, where patients are least likely to expect conscience-based care restrictions. After reviewing existing laws that protect clinicians' conscience, the article discusses limited legal remedies available to patients.

MeSH terms

Conscience*
Ethics, Medical
Humans
Legislation, Medical*
Organizations
Physicians* / ethics
Physicians* / legislation & jurisprudence
Refusal to Treat* / ethics
Refusal to Treat* / legislation & jurisprudence