The rule of right vs might: a reply to Wischik's ‘Nazis, teleology, and the freedom of conscience'

Gamble, Nathan; Pruski, Michal

doi:10.1080/20502877.2021.1874173

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nathan Gamble and I have recently worked on formulating a teleological framework of medical acts within the CO debate. 6,7 The key tenet of this framework is that medicine (as well as nursing, clinical laboratory work, pharmacy, etc.) is an activity directed towards patients’ health (a publicly defensible view as Brummett suggests when referencing Callahan in the context of ‘healing broken bodies').…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, this teleology of an act is only the starting point of the analysis, for an act could be immoral for other reasons too. 6,7 For example, a specific medical act might not be appropriate in a given case (e.g. amputating a whole leg if amputating the toe would suffice), performing a beneficial intervention when the patient refused to give consent (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acts and distance—a commentary on Brummett's ‘when conscientious objection runs amok’

Pruski

2021

Clinical Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his ‘When conscientious objection runs amok: A physician refusing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) preventative to a bisexual patient’, Brummett has argued that Catholic physicians (or indeed any other healthcare practitioner) should not be able to raise conscientious objections to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for bisexual patients, as this constitutes discrimination. Brummett argues that such a conscientious objection represents an instance of conscience creep, which he argues is undesirable. Here I re-analyse the case presented by Brummett using a teleological framework and making reference to Catholic teaching on cooperation with evil. While I agree with Brummett that in this case the physician should not have had the right to conscientiously object, I argue that the teleological framework offers advantages over the argument Brummett has presented. I also comment on why only considering empirically measurable harm as a publicly defensible reason for one to hold a conscientious objection is problematic, as well as on the difficulties associated with cases of discrimination in a pluralistic society.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%