• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Conscientious objection, harm reduction and abortion care 
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Department of Law
    • Conscientious objection, harm reduction and abortion care
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Department of Law
    • Conscientious objection, harm reduction and abortion care
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Conscientious objection, harm reduction and abortion care

    View/Open
    Accepted version (243.9Kb)
    Editors
    Donnelly, M
    Murray, C
    Edition
    First
    Pagination
    24 - 41 (18)
    Publisher
    Manchester University Press
    Publisher URL
    http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719099465/
    ISBN-13
    978-0-7190-9946-5
    Location
    Manchester
    Journal
    Ethical and Legal Debates in Irish Healthcare: Confronting Complexities
    Irish Society
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The scope of any legal right to refuse abortion care merits particular consideration given the recent passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 (PLDPA). Irish health scholarship and practice may benefit from an account of conscientious objection (CO) that clarifies when CO is legitimately engaged by a refusal to provide care and whether CO is limited given its potential effect as a barrier to women’s lawful access to abortion. This chapter responds to these concerns by arguing for a harm reduction approach to conscientious objection. Those who wish to refuse provision of healthcare in spite of a legal obligation, and those who wish to provide healthcare in spite of a legal prohibition, may be harmed by having to act against their most intimate convictions. Moreover, public reasoning about the proper scope of healthcare provision could be disadvantaged by a failure to recognize a space for critical consciousness. The need to reduce the risk of harm to women, whose lawful entitlement to access abortion has been hard-won, also animates the justification for legal limits on CO. In arguing for a harm reduction approach, the account offered here draws on but distinguishes itself from those who have relied on public obligations to refute CO and those who have relied on an individual right to moral integrity to ground CO.
    Authors
    FLETCHER, R
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/15727
    Collections
    • Department of Law [647]
    Copyright statements
    (c) Manchester University Press 2016.
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.