Clarke Steve
Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Barton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2017 Apr;43(4):218-221. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103777. Epub 2016 Sep 29.
An analogy is sometimes drawn between the proper treatment of conscientious objectors in healthcare and in military contexts. In this paper, I consider an aspect of this analogy that has not, to my knowledge, been considered in debates about conscientious objection in healthcare. In the USA and elsewhere, tribunals have been tasked with the responsibility of recommending particular forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors. Military conscripts who have a conscientious objection to active military service, and whose objections are deemed acceptable, are required either to serve the military in a non-combat role, or assigned some form of community service that does not contribute to the effectiveness of the military. I argue that consideration of the role that military tribunals have played in determining the appropriate form of alternative service for conscripts who are conscientious objectors can help us to understand how conscientious objectors in healthcare ought to be treated. Additionally, I show that it helps us to address the vexed issue of whether or not conscientious objectors who refuse to provide a service requested by a patient should be required to refer that patient to another healthcare professional.
有时会在医疗保健领域和军事领域对出于良心拒服兵役者的妥善对待之间进行类比。在本文中，我考虑了这一类比的一个方面，据我所知，在关于医疗保健领域出于良心拒服兵役的辩论中尚未有人考虑过这一方面。在美国和其他地方，法庭负责为出于良心拒服兵役者推荐特定形式的替代服务。那些出于良心反对服现役且其反对意见被认为可接受的应征入伍者，要么以非战斗角色为军队服役，要么被分配某种不增强军队战斗力的社区服务。我认为，考虑军事法庭在为出于良心拒服兵役的应征入伍者确定合适的替代服务形式方面所起的作用，有助于我们理解医疗保健领域的出于良心拒服兵役者应如何对待。此外，我表明这有助于我们解决一个棘手的问题，即拒绝提供患者所要求服务的出于良心拒服兵役者是否应被要求将该患者转介给另一位医疗保健专业人员。
