CONSCIENTIOUS REFUSAL AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS: DOES RELIGION MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
CONSCIENTIOUS REFUSAL AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS: DOES RELIGION MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/bioe.12059
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Weinstock, Daniel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Weinstock, Daniel
良心自由和宗教自由应该被用来保护两种不同的道德考虑。前者保护代理人批判性反思其社会普遍出现的道德和政治问题的能力，更具体地说是其职业生活中出现的道德和政治问题。后者保护个人在一系列实践和仪式中获得安全成员资格的能力，这些实践和仪式具有将她的生活铭刻在时间上延伸的叙述中的道德功能。一旦区分了这些理由，根据后者来批准医疗保健专业人员的宗教豁免要求就变得比根据前者更困难。虽然这两套考虑因素都产生了便利权的内部理由，但在道德良心主张的情况下出现的相关外部理由在宗教良心主张的情况下并不具有类似物。然而，这一论点仅适用于不可还原的宗教主张，即无法转化为道德词汇的主张。此外，可能有理由给予宗教人士的索赔豁免，这与索赔的性质无关，但与宗教人士的存在在多信仰社会的医疗机构中可能产生的有益影响有关。
Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Religion should be taken to protect two distinct sets of moral considerations. The former protects the ability of the agent to reflect critically upon the moral and political issues that arise in her society generally, and in her professional life more specifically. The latter protects the individual's ability to achieve secure membership in a set of practices and rituals that have as a moral function to inscribe her life in a temporally extended narrative. Once these grounds are distinguished, it becomes more difficult to grant healthcare professionals' claims to religious exemptions on the basis of the latter than it is on the basis of the former. While both sets of considerations generate internal reasons' for rights to accommodation, the relevant external' reasons present in the case of claims of moral conscience do not possess analogues in the case of claims of religious conscience. However, the argument applies only to irreducibly religious' claims, that is to claims that cannot be translated into moral vocabulary. What's more, there may be reasons to grant the claims of religious persons to exemptions that have to do not with the nature of the claims, but with the beneficial effects that the presence of religious persons may have in the context of the healthcare institutions of multi-faith societies.