A Matter of Conscience: Examining the Law and Policy of Conscientious Objection in Health Care

Abstract

Conscientious objection refers to refusal by a health care provider (HCP) to provide certain treatments, including the standard of care, to a patient based upon the provider’s personal, ethical, or religious beliefs. Federal and state rules regarding conscientious objection have expanded the scope of legal protections that HCPs and institutions can invoke in support of refusal. Opponents of these rules argue that allowing refusal of care deprives patients of care that conforms to professionally established guidelines, contradicts long-standing principles related to informed consent, interferes with the ability of health care facilities to provide safe and efficient care, and leaves the patient without means of redress for injury. Proponents respond that such rules are necessary to preserve the moral integrity of providers, including institutions. Although refusal rules are most often associated with abortion, some HCPs have cited moral concerns regarding contraception, sterilization, prevention/treatment of sexually transmitted infections, transition-related care for transgender individuals, medication-assisted treatment of substance use disorders, the use of artificial reproductive technologies, and patient preferences for end-of-life care. Evidence suggests that the burden of conscientious refusal falls disproportionately on vulnerable populations, and legitimate concern exists that moral disagreement is merely pretext for discrimination. A careful balance must be struck between the defending the conscience rights of HCPs and the civil rights of patients.