Conscientious objection to participation in abortion by midwives and nurses: a systematic review of reasons.
Conscientious objection to participation in abortion by midwives and nurses: a systematic review of reasons.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12910-018-0268-3
复制
发表时间：
2018-04-27
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Ramsayer B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fleming V;Frith L;Luyben A;Ramsayer B
良心自由是大多数欧洲国家尊重的人权的核心要素。它通过列入一项良心条款允许堕胎，该条款允许选择不提供此类服务。然而，援引依良心拒服兵役的理由不明确。我们在本文中的目的是朝着这个方向迈出一步，对助产士和护士出于良心拒绝参与堕胎的原因进行系统审查。我们进行了一个系统的审查的伦理论点，问：“有什么理由已报告的论点为基础的文学或反对良心反对堕胎提供护士或助产士？”我们特别想确定任何关于助产士和护士在这方面责任的讨论。检索词为2000-2016年期间的良心反对和堕胎或终止以及护士或助产士或助产士或医生或医生或医务人员：HEIN法律的，Medline，CINAHL，Psychinfo，Academic Search Complete，Web of Science，包括英语，德语和荷兰语出版物。对最后的文章进行了严格的分析，对每行进行了编码，并将其分为理由、支持或反对依良心拒服兵役的狭义和广义理由。在最初的1085篇文章中，纳入了10篇。我们确定了23个广泛的原因，包含116个狭义的原因和269个原因提到。81条狭义理由支持依良心拒服兵役，35条反对。使用预先确定的道德、实践、宗教或法律的原因类别，“道德原因”包含最多的狭义原因（n = 58）。在这一类别中的原因及其相关提及的数量超过了其他三个类别的总和。我们没有发现支持或反对助产士或护士出于良心拒服兵役的绝对论据。在关于出于良心拒服兵役的整个辩论中，助产士和护士的身影被忽略了，这反映了理论与实践之间的差距，因为正是他们被卫生组织推荐为这一服务的提供者。虽然文献中的论点强调有必要提供出于良心拒服兵役的规定，但在这一领域有必要进行平衡的辩论，其中包括所有相关的卫生专业人员。
Freedom of conscience is a core element of human rights respected by most European countries. It allows abortion through the inclusion of a conscience clause, which permits opting out of providing such services. However, the grounds for invoking conscientious objection lack clarity. Our aim in this paper is to take a step in this direction by carrying out a systematic review of reasons by midwives and nurses for declining, on conscience grounds, to participate in abortion. We conducted a systematic review of ethical arguments asking, “What reasons have been reported in the argument based literature for or against conscientious objection to abortion provision by nurses or midwives?” We particularly wanted to identify any discussion of the responsibilities of midwives and nurses in this area. Search terms were conscientious objection and abortion or termination and nurse or midwife or midwives or physicians or doctors or medics within the dates 2000–2016 on: HEIN legal, Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science including publications in English, German and Dutch. Final articles were subjected to a rigorous analysis, coding and classifying each line into reason mentions, narrow and broad reasons for or against conscientious objection. Of an initial 1085 articles, 10 were included. We identified 23 broad reasons, containing 116narrow reasons and 269 reason mentions. Eighty one (81) narrow reasons argued in favour of and 35 against conscientious objection. Using predetermined categories of moral, practical, religious or legal reasons, “moral reasons” contained the largest number of narrow reasons (n = 58). The reasons and their associated mentions in this category outnumber those in the sum of the other three categories. We identified no absolute argument either for or against conscientious objection by midwives or nurses. An invisibility of midwives and nurses exists in the whole debate concerning conscientious objection reflecting a gap between literature and practice, as it is they whom WHO recommend as providers of this service. While the arguments in the literature emphasize the need for provision of conscientious objection, a balanced debate is necessary in this field, which includes all relevant health professionals.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/s0020-7292(13)60002-8
发表时间：
2013-12-01
期刊：
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
影响因子：
--
作者：
Chavkin, Wendy;Leitman, Liddy;Polin, Kate
通讯作者：
Polin, Kate
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
McCullough, Laurence B.;Coverdale, John H.;Chervenak, Frank A.
通讯作者：
Chervenak, Frank A.
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Davis, G;Davidson, R
通讯作者：
Davidson, R
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Fovargue, Sara;Neal, Mary
通讯作者：
Neal, Mary
DOI：
10.3109/13625187.2013.819848
发表时间：
2013-08-01
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Heino, Anna;Gissler, Mika;Fiala, Christian
通讯作者：
Fiala, Christian