Meyers C, Woods R D
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, California State University, Bakersfield, USA.
J Med Ethics. 1996 Apr;22(2):115-20. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.2.115.
Access to abortion services in the United States continues to decline. It does so not because of significant changes in legislation or court rulings but because fewer and fewer physicians wish to perform abortions and because most states now have "conscientious objection" legislation that makes it easy for physicians to refuse to do so. We argue in this paper that physicians have an obligation to perform all socially sanctioned medical services, including abortions, and thus that the burden of justification lies upon those who wish to be excused from that obligation. That is, such persons should have to show how requiring them to perform abortions would represent a serious threat to their fundamental moral or religious beliefs. We use current California law as an example of legislation that does not take physicians' obligations into account and thus allows them too easily to declare conscientious objection.
在美国，堕胎服务的可及性持续下降。其下降并非由于立法或法院裁决的重大变化，而是因为越来越少的医生愿意实施堕胎手术，且大多数州现在都有“良心拒服”立法，这使得医生很容易拒绝实施堕胎手术。我们在本文中认为，医生有义务提供所有社会认可的医疗服务，包括堕胎服务，因此，想要免除该义务的人负有举证责任。也就是说，这类人应必须表明要求他们实施堕胎手术将如何对其基本道德或宗教信仰构成严重威胁。我们以加利福尼亚州现行法律为例，该法律未考虑医生的义务，从而使他们过于轻易地宣称良心拒服。
