Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced its intent to strengthen enforcement of legal protections for health care providers' conscience rights. It proposed regulations that would give the DHHS Office of Civil Rights greater authority to ensure that recipients of federal funding comply with federal conscience laws. This recent development creates an opportunity for scholars and policy‐makers to revisit the perennial debate about whether and how law should protect health care providers' rights of conscience. Arguments (...) about who should be protected, what actions should be protected, and whether there should be any limitations on the exercise of conscience rights have brought us no closer to a resolution. However, there is one remaining avenue for analysis that has, surprisingly, received very little attention—the question of how providers are protected, and from what consequences. Existing U.S. conscience laws immunize health care providers from a wide range of adverse consequences—including civil liability, criminal prosecution, administrative penalties, adverse action by employers, and discrimination by private actors, among others. However, academic and public policy debates rarely acknowledge the breadth of these protections. It is essential to disentangle this network of possible protections. (shrink)

When individual patients' medical decisions contribute to population-level trends, physicians may struggle with how to promote justice while maintaining respect for patient autonomy. This article argues that this tension might be resolved by using the informed consent conversation as an opportunity to position patients as societal stewards.

This article argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is likely to impact medical decision-making by pregnant patients in a variety of contexts. Of particular concern are situations where a patient declines treatment recommended for its potential benefit to the fetus and situations where treatment is withheld due to potential risk to the fetus. The Court’s elevation of fetal interests, combined with a history of courts using abortion jurisprudence to guide their reasoning in compelled treatment cases, means that Dobbs (...) has the potential to limit patient autonomy in a wide array of clinical settings. The article calls on professional medical associations to issue ethical guidance affirming the duty to respect the medical self-determination of pregnant patients. (shrink)

The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) “Opinion 1.1.7, Physician Exercise of Conscience” attempts to help physicians strike a reasonable balance between their own conscientious beliefs and their patients’ medical interests in an effort to minimize harms to both. However, some ambiguity still remains as to whether the severity of harms experienced by physicians and patients is to be assessed externally (by policy makers or by a professional body like the AMA), or internally by the subjects of those harms. Conflicts between conscientious (...) physicians’ self-assessments of the moral harm associated with various actions and the AMA’s external assessments of such harms are likely to lead to challenges in the implementation of some provisions of its opinion. This commentary argues, however, that provisions (b) and (e) of the opinion, which describe the information physicians should provide about their own scope of practice and about the existence of controversial procedures, are less likely to conflict with physicians’ subjective assessments of moral harm, and therefore will face fewer challenges in implementation. (shrink)

Morain and colleagues (2019) advocate rethinking the rather dogmatic guidance from both regulatory authorities and professional associations cautioning physician-investigators against obtaining inf...

Recent media reports have drawn widespread attention to the experiences of patients who are denied reproductive services at Catholic hospitals. For some patients, such as those experiencing miscarriage, denial of appropriate treatment can lead to serious health consequences. However, many patients are unaware of the limitations on services available at religiously affiliated health care institutions. As a result, patients’ ability to make informed and autonomous decisions about where to seek treatment is hindered. There are currently no federal or state laws (...) requiring health care institutions to inform patients directly of the full scope of medical services they are unable to provide on the basis of religion or conscience. Given religious hospitals’ significant role in the provision of health care in the United States, it is essential that patients be clearly informed about institutional limitations on care. This goal would be best served by adopting a federal disclosure law similar to the Patient Self-Determination Act. (shrink)