Religious Liberty and Conscience Protection …

August 16, 2011

in Bioethics

John Garvey’s open letter on the Institute of Medicine’s health care proposals.

Steve Schneck and Michael Sean Winters on the inadequacy of HHS’s conscience protections.

Robert George’s comments to ACOG would also be pertinent to the recent IOM report resulting in HHS’s new rule re mandated coverage.

“The key thing to see is that the issues in dispute are philosophical and can only be resolved by philosophical reflection and debate. They cannot be resolved by science or methods of scientific inquiry. The committee report reflects and promotes a particular moral view and vision and understandings of health and medicine shaped in every contested dimension and in every dimension relevant to the report’s subject matter, namely the limits of conscientious refusal, by that moral view and vision.

The report, in other words, in its driving assumptions, reasoning, and conclusions is not morally neutral. Its analysis and recommendations for action do not proceed from a basis of moral neutrality. It represents a partisan position among the family of possible positions debated or adopted by people of reason and goodwill in the medical profession and beyond. Indeed, for me, the partisanship of the report is its most striking feature.” Robert George responding to ACOG report on Conscientious Refusal (also here)

Robert George on Politics & Conscience

Lynn Wardle’s Protection of Healthcare Providers’ Rights of Conscience in American Law: Present, Past, and Future , her Rights of Conscience vs. Peer-Driven Medical Ethics: ACOG and Abortion and Myer’s response.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: