Picture of boy being examining by doctor at a tuberculosis sanatorium

Understanding our future through Open Access research about our past...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by researchers in the Centre for the Social History of Health & Healthcare (CSHHH), based within the School of Humanities, and considered Scotland's leading centre for the history of health and medicine.

Research at CSHHH explores the modern world since 1800 in locations as diverse as the UK, Asia, Africa, North America, and Europe. Areas of specialism include contraception and sexuality; family health and medical services; occupational health and medicine; disability; the history of psychiatry; conflict and warfare; and, drugs, pharmaceuticals and intoxicants.

Explore the Open Access research of the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Image: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. Wellcome Collection - CC-BY.

Conscientious objection, 'proper medical treatment' and professionalism : the limits of accommodation for conscience in healthcare

Neal, Mary (2019) Conscientious objection, 'proper medical treatment' and professionalism : the limits of accommodation for conscience in healthcare. In: Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Exemptions in a Liberal State. Hart Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 135-156. ISBN 9781509920952 (In Press)

[img] Text (Neal-Hart-2019-Conscientious-objection-proper-medical-treatment-and-professionalism)
Accepted Author Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 13 December 2020.

Download (897kB) | Request a copy from the Strathclyde author


In recent years there has been a marked increase in academic interest in the phenomenon of conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare. The resulting literature, which is already substantial and continually expanding, reflects a spectrum of opinion on the practice ranging from support through mere toleration to barely disguised (and occasionally open) hostility. Despite some forceful academic opposition, however, most scholars who engage with the issue recognise the appropriateness of accommodating CO at least to some extent. The usual way of explaining why it is necessary and/or desirable to accommodate CO involves citing the need to protect individuals from being obliged to violate their moral integrity in the course of performing their professional roles. The meaning of ‘moral integrity’ is itself the subject of detailed philosophical debate, and is not my focus in this chapter: here, I presuppose that ‘a physician’s interest in moral integrity is a very important interest that has substantial moral weight’ and that the primary reason for accommodating and exercising CO is that we recognise the value of moral integrity and wish to respect and preserve it.