Skip to main content

Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Curlin, FA; Lawrence, RE; Chin, MH; Lantos, JD
Published in: N Engl J Med
February 8, 2007

BACKGROUND: There is a heated debate about whether health professionals may refuse to provide treatments to which they object on moral grounds. It is important to understand how physicians think about their ethical rights and obligations when such conflicts emerge in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a stratified, random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties by mail. The primary criterion variables were physicians' judgments about their ethical rights and obligations when patients request a legal medical procedure to which the physician objects for religious or moral reasons. These procedures included administering terminal sedation in dying patients, providing abortion for failed contraception, and prescribing birth control to adolescents without parental approval. RESULTS: A total of 1144 of 1820 physicians (63%) responded to our survey. On the basis of our results, we estimate that most physicians believe that it is ethically permissible for doctors to explain their moral objections to patients (63%). Most also believe that physicians are obligated to present all options (86%) and to refer the patient to another clinician who does not object to the requested procedure (71%). Physicians who were male, those who were religious, and those who had personal objections to morally controversial clinical practices were less likely to report that doctors must disclose information about or refer patients for medical procedures to which the physician objected on moral grounds (multivariate odds ratios, 0.3 to 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians do not consider themselves obligated to disclose information about or refer patients for legal but morally controversial medical procedures. Patients who want information about and access to such procedures may need to inquire proactively to determine whether their physicians would accommodate such requests.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

N Engl J Med

DOI

EISSN

1533-4406

Publication Date

February 8, 2007

Volume

356

Issue

6

Start / End Page

593 / 600

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • United States
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Suicide, Assisted
  • Religion and Medicine
  • Refusal to Treat
  • Physicians
  • Personal Autonomy
  • Paternalism
  • Morals
  • Male
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Curlin, F. A., Lawrence, R. E., Chin, M. H., & Lantos, J. D. (2007). Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices. N Engl J Med, 356(6), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065316
Curlin, Farr A., Ryan E. Lawrence, Marshall H. Chin, and John D. Lantos. “Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices.N Engl J Med 356, no. 6 (February 8, 2007): 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa065316.
Curlin FA, Lawrence RE, Chin MH, Lantos JD. Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices. N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 8;356(6):593–600.
Curlin, Farr A., et al. “Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices.N Engl J Med, vol. 356, no. 6, Feb. 2007, pp. 593–600. Pubmed, doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065316.
Curlin FA, Lawrence RE, Chin MH, Lantos JD. Religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices. N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 8;356(6):593–600.

Published In

N Engl J Med

DOI

EISSN

1533-4406

Publication Date

February 8, 2007

Volume

356

Issue

6

Start / End Page

593 / 600

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • United States
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Suicide, Assisted
  • Religion and Medicine
  • Refusal to Treat
  • Physicians
  • Personal Autonomy
  • Paternalism
  • Morals
  • Male