Postscript for the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: Morgentaler vs. Professors Cook and Dickens

12 Pages Posted: 29 Mar 2012

See all articles by Sean T. Murphy

Sean T. Murphy

Protection of Conscience Project

Date Written: November 25, 2005

Abstract

An article about the morning after pill by law professors RJ Cook and BM Dickens in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada elicited a protest from Dr. Howard Bright of Chilliwack, B.C. Dr. Bright contested their statement that physicians are obliged to refer for treatments to which they are morally opposed. “There is no obligation to refer,” he wrote, citing the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association.

Nonetheless, Cook and Dickens stuck to their claim. “Physicians who feel entitled to subordinate their patient’s desire for well-being to the service of their own personal morality or conscience,” they stated, “should not practise clinical medicine”

The assertion that a patient’s desire should be an ordering principle in the practice of medicine has little to recommend it. More important, the arguments of Professors Cook and Dickens for mandatory referral are unsupported and even contradicted by their own legal and ethical references.

Suggested Citation

Murphy, Sean T., Postscript for the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: Morgentaler vs. Professors Cook and Dickens (November 25, 2005). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2030542 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2030542

Sean T. Murphy (Contact Author)

Protection of Conscience Project ( email )

7120 Tofino St.
Powell River, Ontario V8A 1G3
Canada
604-485-9765 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.consciencelaws.org

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
28
Abstract Views
405
PlumX Metrics