The Right to Conscientious Objection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenlaw.2017.0501.02Keywords:
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Conscientious objection, military service, doctor-patient relationship, Hippocratic oathAbstract
Conscientious objection, as the modern claim of a person who opposes a legal obligation by invoking one’s "sovereignty" of conscience, takes different forms. The purpose of this paper is to bring to the foreground some individual manifestation aspects of religious and philosophical beliefs in connection to military service and labour relations, with a focus on doctor – patient relationship (which is situated at the intersection of the individual autonomy principle and the obligation to comply with the Hippocratic Oath).References
Agir pour la Paix, International standards on conscientious objection, p.2. Retrieved from: http://agirpourlapaix.be/wp-content/uploads/ENG_International.pdf
Art. 374 (3) "Medical decisions shall be taken by considering the patient's interests and rights, the generally accepted medical principles, non-discrimination of patients, respect for human dignity and medical ethics, care for the patient's health and public health".
Art.375(3) "In connection with the exercise of the profession and within the limits of the professional competencies, the doctor cannot be imposed restrictions on medical prescription and recommendations, given the humanitarian character of the medical profession, the physician's obligation to have the deepest respect for the human being and loyalty to his or her patient, as well as the right of the doctor to prescribe and recommend to the patient everything that is necessary from the medical point of view ".
Benjamin, M. (2004). Conscience. In Post, S. G. (ed), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, I, A-C, 517-518, 3rd Edition, (pp. 517-518). Macmillan.
Ciuca, A. (2014). The Islamic veil in the public sphere and the signs of intolerance. Journal of Freedom of Conscience, Editions IARSIC, France.
Ciuca, A. (2015). The Death Row: An Argument for the Death Penalty Abolition? In A. Frunza, T. Ciulei, A. Sandu (Edts), Transdisciplinarity and Communicative Actions, Medimond International Proceedings, Bologna, Italy.
CJUE, Case Bougnaoui, C-188/15
CJUE, Case C-157/15. CJUE
Conseil de l'Europe, Guide sur l’Article 9 (2015), 7-9, (Guide sur la jurisprudence) www.ehr.coe.int
ECHR, Blumberg v. Germania
ECHR, Dogru v. France, App.no.27058/05, ECHR (2008), www.echr.coe.int
ECHR, Kervanci v. France, App.no.31645/04, ECHR (2008), www.echr.coe.int
ECHR, S.A.S. v. France, App.43835/11, Decision 1.08.2014, http://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int
ECHR, Eweida and Others v. U.K, Applications 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, &81
ECHR, Feti Demirta v. Turkey, Appl. No.5260/07, Judg.
/01/2012, Tsaturyan v. Armenia, Appl. No.37821/03, Judg.
/01/2012, Bukharatyan v. Armenia, Appl. No.37819/03, Judg.
/01/2012, Bayatan v. Armenia, Appl. No. 23459/03,
Judg. 7 July 2011, Ercep v. Turkey, Appl. 43965/04,
Judg. 22/11/2011.
ECHR, Knudsen v. Norvegia, Appl. 11045/84, Dec. 1985 and Van Schijndel, Van Der Heyden and Leenman v. The Netherlands, Appl. no. 30936/96, Judgment 20 May 1998 (the applicants entered an abortion clinic and kneel down on the hallway).
ECHR, Nyyssnen v. Finland, Appl. No. 30406/96, Judgment 1998 (the applicant, an oncologist, was withdrawn his license to practice because he was using alternative treatments)
ECHR, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, 50, serie A no 295-A, www.echr.coe.int
ECHR, Pichon et Sajous v. France, Appl. 49583/99, Dec.on admissibility, 2.Oct.2010.
ECHR, RR v. Poland, Appl. no. 27617/04 (the applicant did not benefit from a genetic test that could have allowed her to have a medical abortion, the Court stated that not all conduct can be regarded as a manifestation of a belief or religion).
Resolution 1763 (2010) Final version, The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care. Parliamentary Assembly http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17909&lang=en
ECHR, Uke v. Turkey, Appl. 39437/98, Judg. 24/01/2014.
ECHR. Tarhan v. Turkey, Aool. No.9078/06, Judgment 17/07/2012
ECHR, Savda v. Turkey, Appl. No. 42730/05, Judgement 12 July 2012.
In re Doe, 418.S.E.2d 3 (Ga 1992).
IEB, Institut Europen de Bioethique (2011). Clauses des conscience au profit des professionnels de la sant. Retrieved from: www.ieb-eib.org.
McCrea, R. (2017). Faith at work: the CJEUs headscarf rulings. Available online at: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.ro/2017/03/faith-at-work-cjeus-headscarf-rulings.html
Noesen v. Wis. Dep't of Reg. & Licensing Pharm. Examining Bd., No. 05CV212 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Feb. 3, 2006
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Available online at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Savulescu, J. (2006). Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal, BMJ. 2006, 332(7536), 294-297. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.332.7536.294
Sheppard, J. (2009). Conscience-Clause Law and Religious Freedom in Health Care, Available online at: http://www.freemarketphysician.com/ conscience-clause-law-and-religous-freedom-in-health-care/
Spranzi, M. (***). Les deux faces de l'objection de conscience dans le domaine de la sante: les contraintes du liberalisme pluraliste, Universite de Versailles, Chargée de mission, Centre d'ethique clinique, Hospital Cochin, AP-HP (Paris), Retrieved online from: http://www.cevipof.com/rtefiles/File/pluralisme%20papers/liberal.texte.pdf (7.10.2016).
Stein, R. (2008). Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121801556.html?sub=A.
Sudre, F. (2006). European and International Human Rights Law. Romania: Polirom.
Swartz, M. S. (2006/6). "Conscience Clauses" or "Unconscionable Clauses": Personal Beliefs Versus Professional Responsibilities. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics: Vol. 6, Iss. 2, Article 2. Available online at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjhple/vol6/iss2/2
Tourkochoriti, I. (2010). The Burka Ban: Divergent Approaches to Freedom of Religion in France and in the USA. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 20(3), 791-852. Available online at: http://ssrn.com/abstarct=2028341 (02.08.2014)
Wing, A.K., Smith, M. N. (2008/8). Critical Race Feminism Lifts the Veil?: Muslim Women, France and the Headscarf Ban. U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-23; UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 39:743, No. 3. Available online at: http://ssrn.com. 1130247
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Aurora CIUCA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
LUMEN Law Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
