The relationship between religion and ethics is extraordinarily complex. Nowhere is this complexity more apparent than in the medical profession, where many now-commonplace procedures violate moral guidelines prescribed by various religions. While health care professionals have an incontrovertible right to religious freedoms, whether they should have the right to withdraw treatment on the basis of their beliefs is a more contentious issue, as conflicts between religious conviction and required patient care have in many cases proven detrimental to the patient. This paper will argue that allowing health care providers to make ethical decisions informed by their religious beliefs in such cases where their decisions will detrimentally impact the
…show more content…
These principles as follows; respect for the autonomy of the patient, beneficence and non-maleficence to the patient, and justice (19). In the case of the Jehovah’s Witness, no consideration is given for the wishes of the patient, and rather the doctor prioritizes his own religious needs over the needs of his patient; in doing so, he fails to act in a manner beneficent to the patient. Additionally, his actions had the potential to inflict “unnecessary pain, suffering, and/or harm” and thus, in accordance with Fisher’s definition, were maleficent (20). Furthermore, the principle of justice implies that not only that “health care providers… work for the public good”, but that all patients have equal access to treatment; yet, clearly, this patient was put at a disadvantage through his treatment being delayed (Sonfield …show more content…
However, this position falsely equivocates the two decisions through ignoring the fiduciary duty which the health care provider has to his or her patients. As Sonheim argues, emphasis mine; “A health care provider’s moral or religious beliefs cannot justify attempts to override patient autonomy… The right to withdraw from services cannot be used as a pretext for… denying patients’ own rights to care” (7). An examination of William David Ross’s theory of prima facie duties further reveals the incorrectness of this position. Ross’s theory contends that certain duties are “obligatory unless there are strong, compelling reasons to override them” (Fischer 13). Health care providers’ rights to act in accordance with their religious beliefs are one of these prima facie duties, as their importance is secondary to their professional duty to provide the best possible care to their patients; thus, when the two come into conflict, the former must be discarded in favour of the
These principles as follows; respect for the autonomy of the patient, beneficence and non-maleficence to the patient, and justice (19). In the case of the Jehovah’s Witness, no consideration is given for the wishes of the patient, and rather the doctor prioritizes his own religious needs over the needs of his patient; in doing so, he fails to act in a manner beneficent to the patient. Additionally, his actions had the potential to inflict “unnecessary pain, suffering, and/or harm” and thus, in accordance with Fisher’s definition, were maleficent (20). Furthermore, the principle of justice implies that not only that “health care providers… work for the public good”, but that all patients have equal access to treatment; yet, clearly, this patient was put at a disadvantage through his treatment being delayed (Sonfield …show more content…
However, this position falsely equivocates the two decisions through ignoring the fiduciary duty which the health care provider has to his or her patients. As Sonheim argues, emphasis mine; “A health care provider’s moral or religious beliefs cannot justify attempts to override patient autonomy… The right to withdraw from services cannot be used as a pretext for… denying patients’ own rights to care” (7). An examination of William David Ross’s theory of prima facie duties further reveals the incorrectness of this position. Ross’s theory contends that certain duties are “obligatory unless there are strong, compelling reasons to override them” (Fischer 13). Health care providers’ rights to act in accordance with their religious beliefs are one of these prima facie duties, as their importance is secondary to their professional duty to provide the best possible care to their patients; thus, when the two come into conflict, the former must be discarded in favour of the