Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Science of Exclusion: Race and Social Capital in Housing Policy
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

Notes Accepted from the March 2013 Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

November 2012, Volume 98, Issue 7

Taking Conscience Seriously
by Elizabeth Sepper
98 Va. L. Rev. 1501 (2012)   View PDF

For too long, the conventional account of morality in medicine has placed conscience firmly on one side of the moral divide. The archetypal doctor who refuses to participate in controversial treatments—most commonly end-of-life care, abortion, sterilization, and contraception—has been the lodestar of legislative efforts and scholarly accounts. In the name of institutional conscience, healthcare facilities have also been permitted to assert moral or religious objections to care and impose them on employees and affiliates of all beliefs and backgrounds. Doctors, nurses, and institutions that are willing to deliver controversial care have been virtually absent from discussions.

This Article aims to reframe the debate by taking conscience seriously. Through engagement with the moral philosophical literature, it makes two inter-related arguments. First, conscience equally may compel a doctor or nurse to deliver a controversial treatment to a patient in need. Yet legislation meant to protect conscience, paradoxically, has undermined the consciences of these doctors and nurses. Second, endowing healthcare institutions with conscience via legislation is theoretically and practically problematic. By privileging the institutions’ rights to refuse to provide certain treatments, legislation impinges on the rights of individual providers to provide care they feel obligated by conscience to deliver. Ultimately, if legislation is to protect conscience, it must negotiate between competing claims of conscience of health providers and the facilities in which they work—regardless of whether they refuse or are willing to provide controversial care. This Article introduces a new framework for achieving a better balance between the interests of institutions, individual doctors and nurses, and the patients who depend on them for care.


Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   |  Bloomberg Bloomberg   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.