Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFLETCHER, Ren_US
dc.contributor.editorDonnelly, Men_US
dc.contributor.editorMurray, Cen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-05T09:35:24Z
dc.date.issued2016-02-28en_US
dc.date.submitted2016-07-06T16:36:26.984Z
dc.identifier.isbn978-0-7190-9946-5en_US
dc.identifier.other2
dc.identifier.other2
dc.identifier.other2en_US
dc.identifier.other2en_US
dc.identifier.other2en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/15727
dc.descriptionA pre-print version is available here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568449
dc.descriptionA pre-print version is available here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568449en_US
dc.descriptionA pre-print version is available here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568449en_US
dc.descriptionA pre-print version is available here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568449en_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.format.extent24 - 41 (18)en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherManchester University Pressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEthical and Legal Debates in Irish Healthcare: Confronting Complexitiesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofIrish Societyen_US
dc.subjectAbortion, Conscience, Harmen_US
dc.titleConscientious objection, harm reduction and abortion careen_US
dc.typeBook chapter
dc.rights.holder(c) Manchester University Press 2016.
pubs.author-urlhttp://www.law.qmul.ac.uk/staff/fletcher.htmlen_US
pubs.editionFirsten_US
pubs.notesNo embargoen_US
pubs.notesEmail from MUP saying chapters may be deposited in institutional repositories so long as it is not the final pdf version.en_US
pubs.place-of-publicationManchesteren_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttp://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719099465/en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record