Abortion restrictions: the case for conscientious non-compliance on the part of providers.
Clicks: 25
ID: 277780
2023
This paper offers a qualified defence of physician non-compliance with antiabortion legislation in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The paper examines two ethically troubling trends of post-Dobbs legislation: narrow and vague maternal health exemption clauses and mandatory reporting of miscarriages in jurisdictions where patients may criminal prosecution for medically induced abortions. It then examines and defends a professional obligation on the part of physicians to comply with the law. This obligation, however, is defeasible. The paper then argues that physicians' obligations to comply with the law is defeated when the law is illegitimate and following the law would constitute bad medical practice. Finally, it argues that the ethically troubling trends in post-Dobbs antiabortion legislation may meet these criteria.
| Reference Key |
randall2023abortionjournal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Randall, Pierce;Mago, Jacob; |
| Journal | Journal of medical ethics |
| Year | 2023 |
| DOI | jme-2023-108964 |
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.