Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Department of Philosophy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
J Med Ethics. 2024 May 9;50(5):351-358. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108731.
We argue that, in certain circumstances, doctors might be justified to provide abortions even in those jurisdictions where abortion is illegal. That it is at least professionally permissible does not mean that they have an all-things-considered ethical justification or obligation to provide illegal abortions or that professional obligations or professional permissibility trump legal obligations. It rather means that professional organisations should respect and indeed protect doctors' positive claims of conscience to provide abortions if they plausibly track what is in the best medical interests of their patients. It is the responsibility of state authorities to enforce the law, but it is the responsibility of professional organisations to uphold the highest standards of medical ethics, even when they conflict with the law. Whatever the legal sanctions in place, healthcare professionals should not be sanctioned by the professional bodies for providing abortions according to professional standards, even if illegally. Indeed, professional organisation should lobby to offer protection to such professionals. Our arguments have practical implications for what healthcare professionals and healthcare professional organisations may or should do in those jurisdictions that legally prohibit abortion, such as some US States after the reversal of .
我们认为,在某些情况下,医生可能有理由提供堕胎服务,即使在那些堕胎非法的司法管辖区也是如此。至少从职业角度来看是允许的,并不意味着他们有充分的伦理理由或义务提供非法堕胎,也不意味着职业义务或职业可允许性凌驾于法律义务之上。这意味着,如果医生的良心主张提供堕胎服务,并且这种主张在很大程度上符合患者的最佳医疗利益,那么专业组织应该尊重并实际上保护医生的这种主张。执法是国家当局的责任,但维护最高的医学伦理标准是专业组织的责任,即使这与法律相冲突。无论现行的法律制裁如何,医疗保健专业人员都不应因按照专业标准提供堕胎服务而受到专业机构的制裁,即使是非法的。事实上,专业组织应该游说为这些专业人员提供保护。我们的论点对医疗保健专业人员和医疗保健专业组织在那些合法禁止堕胎的司法管辖区可能或应该采取的行动具有实际影响,例如美国一些州在 案裁决后。