About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

28 HEC F. 1 (2016)

handle is hein.journals/hecforum28 and id is 1 raw text is: HEC Forum (2016) 28:1-10 DOI 10.1007/s10730-015-9274-8 CrossMrk Do No Evil: Unnoticed Assumptions in Accounts of Conscience Protection Bryan C. Pilkington Published online: 14 March 2015 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract In this paper, I argue that distinctions between traditional and contem- porary accounts of conscience protections, such as the account offered by Aulisio and Arora, fail. These accounts fail because they require an impoverished con- ception of our moral lives. This failure is due to unnoticed assumptions about the distinction between the traditional and contemporary articulations of conscience protection. My argument proceeds as follows: First, I highlight crucial assumptions in Aulisio and Arora's argument. Next, I argue that respecting maximal play in values, though a fine goal in our liberal democratic society, raises a key issue in exactly the situations that matter in these cases. Finally, I argue that too much weight is given to a too narrow conception of values. There are differences between appeals to conscience that are appropriately categorized as traditional or contem- porary, and a way to make sense of conscience in the contemporary medical landscape is needed. However, the normative implications drawn by Aulisio and Arora do not follow from this distinction without much further argument. I conclude that their paper is a helpful illustration the complexity of this issue and of a common view about conscience, but insofar as their view fails to account for the richness of our moral life, they fail to resolve the issue at hand. Keywords Conscience - Autonomy - Liberty - Ethics - Moral life - Values Introduction In a thoughtful paper published in HEC Forum in September, 2014, Speak No Evil? Conscience and the Duty to Inform, Refer or Transfer Care, Aulisio and Arora argue that there is a difference between contributing to (that is, being complicit in) B. C. Pilkington (E) Department of Philosophy, Aquinas College, 1607 Robinson Rd. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506, USA e-mail: bcp004@aquinas.edu I Springer

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most