Conscientious objection to abortion in the developing world: The correspondence argument

In this paper we extend Heidi Hurd’s “correspondence thesis” to the termination of pregnancy debate and argue that the same reasons that determine the permissibility of abortion also determine the justifiability of acts involving conscientious objection against its performance. Essentially, when abo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Developing world bioethics 2021-06, Vol.21 (2), p.90-95
Main Authors: Bhakuni, Himani, Miotto, Lucas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abortion
Abortion, Induced
Conscience
conscientious objection
Conscientious objectors
correspondence thesis
Counties
Dissent and Disputes
Female
global south
Health care policy
Health policy
Humans
Midwives
Nurses
nurses and midwives
Permission
Pregnancy
Prospective Studies
Public health
Referrals
Refusal to Treat
Southern Hemisphere
Special Issue
Termination
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In this paper we extend Heidi Hurd’s “correspondence thesis” to the termination of pregnancy debate and argue that the same reasons that determine the permissibility of abortion also determine the justifiability of acts involving conscientious objection against its performance. Essentially, when abortion is morally justified, acts that prevent or obstruct it are morally unjustified. Therefore, despite conscientious objection being legally permitted in some global south countries, we argue that such permission to conscientiously object would be morally wrong in cases of morally justifiable termination of pregnancy. After presenting and defending our “correspondence argument” we suggest that conscientious objection should be denied as a matter of public health policy in developing counties, even in cases where adequate referral services are possible. Towards the end, we extend our argument to midwives, nurses, and prospective students in the field. Given their essential position in resource‐poor contexts; they too have no claim to conscientious objection.
ISSN:1471-8731
1471-8847
DOI:10.1111/dewb.12302