Table 4 Practical Reasons
Practical Reasons | |
|---|---|
Institutional refusal (+ 4/− 10; rm.:23) | |
- | Greater risk of patient injury in emergencies (3) |
- | Patients have fewer options (3) |
- | Fear that CO becomes widespread (2) |
- | Encourages refusal unrelated to moral reasoning (2) |
- | CO as exemption from general duties to obey the law (2) |
+ | CO cannot be limited to individuals (2) |
+ | Ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care (2) |
+ | May help HCP to change initial view (1) |
+ | Undervaluation of moral associations (1) |
- | Limits patient access (1) |
- | Failure of dissenting staff for emergencies (1) |
- | Best practice may not be possible for the HCP (1) |
- | Right to refuse may end in right to dictate care (1) |
- | Conflicts between CO and medical technologies (1) |
Justifying professional CO (+ 3/−3; rm.:9) | |
- | No common sense of what is “wrong” causes no need for provision (3) |
+ | CO is evidence-based (2) |
- | HCP with strong CO is torn between belief and requirement (1) |
- | Formalistic argument to provide no exemption officials (1) |
+ | Institutions can be selective in offering services (1) |
+ | HCP may lack the intellectual or verbal skill to express CO (1) |
Practice of disclosure creates risk for the HCP (+ 5/−0; rm.:13) | |
+ | Professional disadvantages (7) |
+ | Suffers embarrassment and inconvenience (2) |
+ | Vulnerable to attacks from the other side (2) |
+ | Disadvantages in asserting claims (1) |
+ | Experiences personal safety in danger (1) |
Degree of involvement among HCP is different (+ 1/− 2; rm.:5) | |
+ | Expectations change over time (2) |
- | Intrinsic relevance is debatable (2) |
- | Function in a job is straightforward (1) |
Organisational ethics require consideration (+ 1/−1; rm.:2) | |
- | Choices constrained in emergencies when the closest hospital is far off (1) |
+ | Benefit for society (1) |