You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Letter to the editor
The FSRH guideline on conscientious objection disrespects patient rights and endangers their health
Free
  1. Joyce H Arthur1,
  2. Christian Fiala2,3
  1. 1 Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Vancouver, Canada
  2. 2 Gynmed Clinic, Vienna, Austria
  3. 3 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Ms. Joyce H Arthur, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Vancouver V6B 3W3, Canada; joyce{at}arcc-cdac.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2018-200104

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We write to offer feedback on the new Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) guideline1 on conscientious objection (CO) that was the subject of an editorial2 in the January 2018 issue of this journal. Our position, for which we have a clear evidence base, is set out below.

    Essential parts of the new FSRH guideline,1 as well as the reasoning behind it, contradict the available evidence around the practice of CO, so we predict that the guideline will largely fail in practice.

    We have written extensively on the problem of so-called CO in reproductive healthcare.3 The available evidence clearly shows that CO is a violation of medical ethics and patients’ rights, has no place in reproductive healthcare, and has misleadingly been co-opted from military CO. CO in healthcare is about imposing one’s religious or personal beliefs, including any negative …

    View Full Text