Conscientious refusal and a Doctor’s Right to Quit

Conscientious Refusal and a Doctor’s Right to Quit
Authors Name:
Institution:
Reconstruction
Davis (2004) argues that doctors have the right not to offer patients procedures that go against their morals, e.g., abortion, as long as this rejection does not worsen the patient’s condition if she/he sought the services from another doctor (p.76). However, putting a patient in such a position does not guarantee that their conditions will not worsen and therefore the doctor should go an extra mile and provide ‘restitution’. These (‘restitution’) are the steps a doctor takes after rejecting to offer the patient service to ensure their condition does not worsen. According to Davis (2004), ‘restitution’ is crucial since they respond to some of the ethical concerns that may arise from the refusal of the service, e.g., will the doctor offer moral counseling or refer the patient to another doctor (p.76).
Analysis
The argument by Davis (2004), is founded on four principles that explain the conclusion made in the argument. The first premise of the argument is that a doctor is justified to refuse a procedure to a patient if she/he is not their doctor (p.77). Additionally, the doctor should not interfere with the patient of another doctor, i.e., what the patient and his/her doctor do should not be obstructed (p.77). This is the second reasoning of Davis argument that acts as another basis for refusal of a procedure to a patient by a doctor on a conscientious basis. However, these two principles are pegged on the notion that interference cannot occur unless the requested procedure is overly immoral, i.

e., the immorality degree can prompt a doctor to interfere. E.g., abortion in early pregnancy can be considered less immoral compared to abortion in the final semester when the fetus is well developed.
On the above basis, Davis argues that the second principle of the argument succeeds to be a doctor can only interfere with another doctor’s patient what they do is amply immoral (p.78). Consequently, the third premise that the doctor is justified not to offer the procedure if the conditions of the first two principles are met and the exceptions are not. The doctor cannot, however, halt with the patient’s process to seek these services elsewhere. And the fourth premise argues that a doctor can also reject to offer the procedure if they can transmute the doctor-patient relationship to an equivalent of the relationship this patient would have with another doctor and cannot interfere if the patient gets these services somewhere else (p.79).
The possibility of meeting the conditions of the 2nd and 4th premises are minimal and hence to address this Davis suggests that doctors should offer ‘restitution’. Therefore, if the ‘restitution’ is not required or the doctor offers them, the conscientious refusal of procedure to the patient, is justified. This approach addresses some of the issues that are ambiguous in other approaches advocating for the same. In this case, the ‘restitution’ approach justifies the doctor’s refusal even if based on reasons that are not of moral concern or the moral analysis is incorrect.
Comment
Doctors’ moral values should be considered valued failure to which their liberty will be infringed. Violation of one’s values may result in other ethical concerns like lack of integrity in the profession (Savulescu, 2006). Therefore, Davis’s argument is very insightful and offers a concrete basis that allows doctors to refuse to offer some procedure as long as they offer ‘restitution’. However, this right should not interfere with the quality of medical care patients receive. Doctors as public servants have an obligation to service delivery, and therefore, these ‘restitution’s should be specified. This will ensure there is consistency in medical care and service delivery. For instance, there should be a clear stipulation of what is expected if a doctor refuses to perform procedure, e.g., a doctor who rejects to perform an abortion procedure should refer the patient to another doctor who will do it. Additionally, policymakers should consider those doctors who cannot perform various procedures on morality basis and come up with policies and Standard Operating Procedures that outline how such cases should be handled.
References
Davis, J. K. (2004). Conscientious refusal and a doctor’s right to quit. The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 29(1), 75-91.
Savulescu, J. (2006, February 04). Retrieved February 04, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360408/