Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?

The contentious, topical debate about whether faith-based health care organizations should be granted accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to medical assistance is dying (MAiD) is addressed through a comparative analysis of arguments on both sides of the issue that re...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jeffrey Kirby
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Programmes de bioéthique, École de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal 2021-06-01
Series:Canadian Journal of Bioethics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://cjb-rcb.ca/index.php/cjb-rcb/article/view/340
id doaj-1a2b70b1addf4be2a8a1a7c75fe32991
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1a2b70b1addf4be2a8a1a7c75fe329912021-06-08T21:52:09ZengProgrammes de bioéthique, École de santé publique de l'Université de MontréalCanadian Journal of Bioethics2561-46652021-06-014110.7202/1077623arShould Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?Jeffrey Kirby0Department of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada The contentious, topical debate about whether faith-based health care organizations should be granted accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to medical assistance is dying (MAiD) is addressed through a comparative analysis of arguments on both sides of the issue that references such relevant considerations as: claimed ‘moral-authority’, competing rights-based claims, obligations arising from patient welfare principles, formal justice, dissimilarity in consequences, and two illustrative arguments from analogy. The analysis leads to the conclusion that nonconditional accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to MAiD is not ethically acceptable in Canada. A compromise mechanism, consisting of a suggested set of pragmatic conditions, is proposed that could effectively balance the competing moral responsibilities that arise from this conclusion and a core assumption of the paper, i.e., that some dominant faith-based health institutions can legitimately request, and expect, that provincial/territorial governments pay them a measure of respect in their operational, health-care-delivery decision making because of these institutions’ long history of providing high quality, health care in Canada. It is further suggested that provincial/territorial governments only allow large, publicly funded, faith-based health care organizations to enact a conditional version of accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to MAiD in circumstances where the organization has entered into a formal agreement with the relevant health department to meet the proposed, compromise conditions (or a relevantly-similar set of conditions) https://cjb-rcb.ca/index.php/cjb-rcb/article/view/340institutional conscientious objectionmedical assistance in dyingfaith-based health institutionaccommodationpublicly-funded health care
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jeffrey Kirby
spellingShingle Jeffrey Kirby
Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?
Canadian Journal of Bioethics
institutional conscientious objection
medical assistance in dying
faith-based health institution
accommodation
publicly-funded health care
author_facet Jeffrey Kirby
author_sort Jeffrey Kirby
title Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?
title_short Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?
title_full Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?
title_fullStr Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?
title_full_unstemmed Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?
title_sort should institutional conscientious objection to assisted dying be accommodated?
publisher Programmes de bioéthique, École de santé publique de l'Université de Montréal
series Canadian Journal of Bioethics
issn 2561-4665
publishDate 2021-06-01
description The contentious, topical debate about whether faith-based health care organizations should be granted accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to medical assistance is dying (MAiD) is addressed through a comparative analysis of arguments on both sides of the issue that references such relevant considerations as: claimed ‘moral-authority’, competing rights-based claims, obligations arising from patient welfare principles, formal justice, dissimilarity in consequences, and two illustrative arguments from analogy. The analysis leads to the conclusion that nonconditional accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to MAiD is not ethically acceptable in Canada. A compromise mechanism, consisting of a suggested set of pragmatic conditions, is proposed that could effectively balance the competing moral responsibilities that arise from this conclusion and a core assumption of the paper, i.e., that some dominant faith-based health institutions can legitimately request, and expect, that provincial/territorial governments pay them a measure of respect in their operational, health-care-delivery decision making because of these institutions’ long history of providing high quality, health care in Canada. It is further suggested that provincial/territorial governments only allow large, publicly funded, faith-based health care organizations to enact a conditional version of accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to MAiD in circumstances where the organization has entered into a formal agreement with the relevant health department to meet the proposed, compromise conditions (or a relevantly-similar set of conditions)
topic institutional conscientious objection
medical assistance in dying
faith-based health institution
accommodation
publicly-funded health care
url https://cjb-rcb.ca/index.php/cjb-rcb/article/view/340
work_keys_str_mv AT jeffreykirby shouldinstitutionalconscientiousobjectiontoassisteddyingbeaccommodated
_version_ 1721389359430631424