1
00:00:00,760 --> 00:00:06,220
But and I have we've based on this issue before in the past.

2
00:00:06,220 --> 00:00:16,780
I've written and also taken parts since a public policy very much as a defender of conscientious objection for health care professionals.

3
00:00:16,780 --> 00:00:24,970
And I am the director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, which is the Roman Catholic Centre for Bioethics in Oxford.

4
00:00:24,970 --> 00:00:27,520
But today we're going to do something rather different.

5
00:00:27,520 --> 00:00:35,650
And I'm going to criticise the the the idea that there should be conscientious objection permitted

6
00:00:35,650 --> 00:00:41,760
in healthcare and tests the strength of those arguments and others who's going to do the opposite.

7
00:00:41,760 --> 00:00:49,060
So perhaps I just ask you to introduce yourself first and then then I'll start with my.

8
00:00:49,060 --> 00:00:58,610
Yeah, yeah, thanks. So I'm back to your Bedini. And I'm a senior research fellow at the Oxford Centre for Particular Ethics.

9
00:00:58,610 --> 00:01:06,490
And I have worked quite a lot on the ethics of conscientious objection and have in the past.

10
00:01:06,490 --> 00:01:17,240
I got through to writing a book on that. And yeah, as David said, I made two times the case against.

11
00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:23,140
Conscientious objection. Health care. So I don't think that medical health care professionals should be allowed to continue.

12
00:01:23,140 --> 00:01:29,640
We object to performing. Activities that are part of her job.

13
00:01:29,640 --> 00:01:39,690
But as David said in this case, an interesting thing about this debate today is that I would try to defend the view that I disagree with.

14
00:01:39,690 --> 00:01:45,670
So did you to make a stronger case, the strongest case possible for the idea that we both disagree with?

15
00:01:45,670 --> 00:01:53,680
And that should be interesting, because you should probably bring up bring down the essence of the nature of the

16
00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:59,820
disagreement here and maybe might allow us to make some progress in the debate.

17
00:01:59,820 --> 00:02:06,450
So I think so just to sort of structure would be so David will be speaking for 15 minutes, defending the opposite view.

18
00:02:06,450 --> 00:02:13,380
I would be speaking for 15 minutes and then we would have five minutes each to reply.

19
00:02:13,380 --> 00:02:17,740
And then there is going to be a Q&A and someone will moderate that.

20
00:02:17,740 --> 00:02:28,110
Yes. So what do you do? So if you do have questions as you go through, do you write them in the in the chats, in the Q&A?

21
00:02:28,110 --> 00:02:33,120
And hopefully somebody will be able to pull out some of that later on.

22
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:36,750
So so let's make a start on the issue.

23
00:02:36,750 --> 00:02:40,620
So the issue is, should conscientious objection be permitted in health care?

24
00:02:40,620 --> 00:02:57,000
Should health care workers be permitted to not have to provide particular treatments or interventions if they have a conscientious objection?

25
00:02:57,000 --> 00:03:04,260
And I'm going to argue no. I'm going to argue that we should not allow health care workers.

26
00:03:04,260 --> 00:03:09,090
At least we shouldn't allow them a generalised permission in advance.

27
00:03:09,090 --> 00:03:10,350
So that's what I'm going to argue against,

28
00:03:10,350 --> 00:03:20,520
that generalised permission in advance to providing treatments or procedures which go against the health care workers deeply held moral beliefs.

29
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:24,690
Obviously, in a particular instance, somebody might say, I don't want to do this and you might have a conversation.

30
00:03:24,690 --> 00:03:31,590
And an that way you might come to a different agreement. But we're talking about conscientious objection as a as a practise, if you'd like,

31
00:03:31,590 --> 00:03:37,350
as a as a kind of claim that the doctors or nurses can make if they say,

32
00:03:37,350 --> 00:03:43,090
no, I don't want to do this because it goes against my conscience and I shouldn't have to do it.

33
00:03:43,090 --> 00:03:48,040
So what is the problem with with with accepting a right to conscientious objection,

34
00:03:48,040 --> 00:03:54,010
with accepting that people should be allowed to follow the consciences?

35
00:03:54,010 --> 00:03:56,410
Well, parts of the easiest place to start is,

36
00:03:56,410 --> 00:04:08,140
is with positive actions that we can see that even though it is a good thing in general to allow people to act according to their conscience.

37
00:04:08,140 --> 00:04:13,270
Allowing people to to to act as they as as I believe is right is a good thing.

38
00:04:13,270 --> 00:04:20,170
That does not give a nobody I think thinks it gives a healthcare professional the right to break the law.

39
00:04:20,170 --> 00:04:24,340
If the law is broken, it's still the law is broken by a positive act.

40
00:04:24,340 --> 00:04:30,930
So let's say, for example, that the law prohibits the encouragement of suicide.

41
00:04:30,930 --> 00:04:38,950
The encouragement or assistance of suicide, as it does in this country. Well, let's say I as a as a health care worker, psychiatrist,

42
00:04:38,950 --> 00:04:47,680
say I disagree with this law and I decide that I will provide for my patient a lethal drug to a patient who is suicidal,

43
00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:53,620
because I think in this case, that's that's what will be good for my patient.

44
00:04:53,620 --> 00:05:00,430
Well, I might think this and I might think this contentiously, but it would still be illegal and I would still be liable.

45
00:05:00,430 --> 00:05:12,500
And the fact that I say in the law should be different doesn't give me a right to do so, doesn't give me a right to do so without consequences for me.

46
00:05:12,500 --> 00:05:17,320
Maybe I go to court and maybe I win in court, but I am liable.

47
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:24,370
Prima facie I'm liable. And this seems reasonable because we don't think the doctors should be a law unto themselves.

48
00:05:24,370 --> 00:05:27,400
Doctors are not a law unto themselves. Nurses are not a law unto themselves.

49
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:40,150
Say they fit within a ideas of what we accept and healthcare, which are accepted by society as a whole, which are laid down by society as a whole.

50
00:05:40,150 --> 00:05:44,770
And I think that at least in some issues and issues,

51
00:05:44,770 --> 00:05:54,280
particularly around life and death issues such as abortion or infanticide or suicide or mercy killing,

52
00:05:54,280 --> 00:06:03,490
we think that these things are and should be matters of law matters on which the law decides what is permitted and what is not permitted.

53
00:06:03,490 --> 00:06:11,530
It is precisely because indeed these matters of life and death are moral issues and ethical issues, not merely technical ones,

54
00:06:11,530 --> 00:06:16,450
but it is society as a whole which decides what is the view of the good and the

55
00:06:16,450 --> 00:06:21,520
just and the right in relation to these things that we should uphold in society.

56
00:06:21,520 --> 00:06:31,790
What are the values that our society wishes to hold in healthcare in relation to matters of life and death?

57
00:06:31,790 --> 00:06:39,580
And this is not just true at a state level. I would say, but it's also true at the level of institutions, hospitals or professional bodies.

58
00:06:39,580 --> 00:06:45,320
Organisations have consciences. They have an institutional conscience.

59
00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:50,880
And the institutional common conscience reflects the values of that institution.

60
00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:54,780
And if it's a professional body, the professional standards of that institution,

61
00:06:54,780 --> 00:07:04,590
that's what how professions differentiate themselves from from just groups of people with expertise, that people are committed to certain values.

62
00:07:04,590 --> 00:07:10,680
And these values are then and codified in the professional bodies.

63
00:07:10,680 --> 00:07:16,440
And this restricts what professionals are allowed to do. That's indeed the whole point of professional standards.

64
00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:24,000
Professional standards restrict professionals to working to certain standards.

65
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:31,680
And. Even though it's easier to see in relation to positive actions and in regards to Prohibition's,

66
00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:40,680
the same thing calls in regard to Duty's a profession, a professional has certain duties as a professional.

67
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:44,370
And that's what makes them a profession.

68
00:07:44,370 --> 00:07:52,110
So if somebody asks me for help as a healthcare professional and I refuse to provide and refuse to prepare to refer to somebody else,

69
00:07:52,110 --> 00:08:00,790
to provide a particular intervention which might be helpful, then I may harm them.

70
00:08:00,790 --> 00:08:07,590
And that would then go against my duty. At least my prima facie duty to help them.

71
00:08:07,590 --> 00:08:16,710
Imagine, for example, I'm a consultant who objects to refer in children to intensive care.

72
00:08:16,710 --> 00:08:21,720
If the if the child is likely to survive only with cognitive disabilities.

73
00:08:21,720 --> 00:08:28,480
I'm a I'm of of our kind of a hard utilitarian sort who thinks that people ought to be productive.

74
00:08:28,480 --> 00:08:36,370
And if if people are going to come out of intensive care with significant disabilities, they shouldn't go into intensive care at all.

75
00:08:36,370 --> 00:08:40,510
Let's say I have this view and the parents want the child going into intensive care.

76
00:08:40,510 --> 00:08:45,360
But I say no, no. That goes against what I think is right.

77
00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:47,460
Do I have the rights to object?

78
00:08:47,460 --> 00:08:54,960
I'm refused not only in my own case, but also refuse to refer to another doctor who I know would take a different view.

79
00:08:54,960 --> 00:09:00,360
Why should I, as the health care professional in a in a privileged situation,

80
00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:11,190
why should I exercise my power to to get in the way of accessing treatments that some doctors might accept or some doctors might not?

81
00:09:11,190 --> 00:09:17,370
Imagine again, and you'll see by my examples that that that's where I come from.

82
00:09:17,370 --> 00:09:23,750
Generally, in terms of moral views, I imagine someone who is a is a militant secularist,

83
00:09:23,750 --> 00:09:29,610
a member of the National Secular Society and secular medical thought forum who refuses.

84
00:09:29,610 --> 00:09:39,140
As a matter of conscience to inform chaplaincy services about a dying patient because he objects to the presence of religious ministers in hospital.

85
00:09:39,140 --> 00:09:52,440
And that I say as a result of this refusal, a patient dies alone and without the support of of their own faith tradition.

86
00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:56,070
In some cases, a case like that, somebody might have a conscience.

87
00:09:56,070 --> 00:09:56,550
Objection.

88
00:09:56,550 --> 00:10:08,700
And it might be true that I mean, it might be reflect their conscience, but it may lead to harm, physical harm or spiritual harm to somebody else.

89
00:10:08,700 --> 00:10:23,710
And this this is an indication that we can't at least have an absolute view of of the rights of conscientious objection.

90
00:10:23,710 --> 00:10:31,040
But you might say, OK, let's have conscientious objection. But still with a duty to refer.

91
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:36,990
But if somebody objects to a procedure.

92
00:10:36,990 --> 00:10:42,600
But you say. But you can't object. But you have to refer to somebody else will do the procedure.

93
00:10:42,600 --> 00:10:50,340
How is I really respect the conscience at all? I mean, if I objected to something because I think it will harm my patient.

94
00:10:50,340 --> 00:10:55,470
But you say I have to pass on that patient to another doctor who would do it

95
00:10:55,470 --> 00:10:59,640
and harm my patient for me because I don't want to get my hands dirty myself.

96
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:04,750
But I don't mind the patient being harmed. That doesn't really respect conscience, I think.

97
00:11:04,750 --> 00:11:14,490
So the problem is that we respect conscience, but then we might have harms that happen because of of my conscience being wrong.

98
00:11:14,490 --> 00:11:18,290
Or you might say you might say, well, you have a duty to refer.

99
00:11:18,290 --> 00:11:24,380
But then but then you may have harms happen when the person is right to object.

100
00:11:24,380 --> 00:11:31,200
And the patient would have been helped by following that conscientious objection.

101
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:38,850
Conscientious objection as an idea. We think of in terms of military service.

102
00:11:38,850 --> 00:11:43,580
That's one of the key elements of of conscientious objection.

103
00:11:43,580 --> 00:11:44,730
Going back to the 18th century,

104
00:11:44,730 --> 00:11:54,380
people have talked about conscientious objection and in relation to military service and in the United Kingdom in 1916 in the middle of the Great War.

105
00:11:54,380 --> 00:12:01,040
The Military Service Act, 1916 instituted conscription, mandatory conscription,

106
00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:07,400
unusual in Britain, but allowed objectors to apply to military service tribunals.

107
00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:13,010
Though, in fact, the military service tribunals were generally very hard on the objectors.

108
00:12:13,010 --> 00:12:20,090
They were not sympathetic to the objectives. And a lot of them, they said they didn't accept their objections and they sent them to the front anyway,

109
00:12:20,090 --> 00:12:30,070
and people were then imprisoned and traumatised. But even where it did work, which was not universal.

110
00:12:30,070 --> 00:12:37,250
Conscientious objection at Wolfer has been seen as objection to the whole practise to being a soldier,

111
00:12:37,250 --> 00:12:44,830
and it allows you not to have to be a soldier, but it's not an objection to a particular procedure.

112
00:12:44,830 --> 00:12:50,320
Not in general, anyway, and neither is an objection to a particular war.

113
00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:56,710
So there've been a number of attempts to say, for example, in the Vietnam War, this was a very big issue.

114
00:12:56,710 --> 00:13:03,370
There were people who said that they weren't pacifists. They accepted that you could sometimes have a just war, but the Vietnam War was not won.

115
00:13:03,370 --> 00:13:12,250
And so they objected to serving in that war. Their objections were not accepted and they weren't accepted because the notion of conscientious

116
00:13:12,250 --> 00:13:18,050
objection was an all or nothing to do with conscription and not to do with discretion.

117
00:13:18,050 --> 00:13:26,590
It didn't really cover that. So all in all, I think that the the the idea of conscientious objection that happens in the military

118
00:13:26,590 --> 00:13:33,190
is so different to to what's proposed for health care that it's not a very good model.

119
00:13:33,190 --> 00:13:38,530
And even if we accept that you shouldn't send people to fight, if they have an objection to fighting,

120
00:13:38,530 --> 00:13:48,240
I don't think that really helps us to see why why we should have conscientious objection within healthcare.

121
00:13:48,240 --> 00:13:53,580
After all, you don't get conscripted to be a doctor. In fact, you get paid rather a lot.

122
00:13:53,580 --> 00:14:03,490
So that's a difference between the kind of situation, the social situation of the conscripts and of the doctor.

123
00:14:03,490 --> 00:14:08,350
And more broadly, and you can see this in relation to it, too.

124
00:14:08,350 --> 00:14:17,230
Also to Wolfer. If you have a conscientious objector, allow a conscientious objection to a war that isn't going to stop the war,

125
00:14:17,230 --> 00:14:22,540
that isn't raising questions about the war. That just allows some people to opt out of it.

126
00:14:22,540 --> 00:14:29,080
So the most fundamental question that somebody might have who objected to a practise isn't really being addressed,

127
00:14:29,080 --> 00:14:36,360
addressed by conscientious objection, as it might be by protest or by civil disobedience.

128
00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:45,220
And indeed, the crafting of laws which protect conscience in relation to two particular procedures.

129
00:14:45,220 --> 00:14:49,000
Almost always. And I can't think an exception offhand.

130
00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:58,330
There are parts of laws to increase the practise which the person objects to, to increase the objectionable practise.

131
00:14:58,330 --> 00:15:08,080
Therefore, conscientious objection laws are always laws which are passed, which the person who objects would prefer the law not to be passed.

132
00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:11,440
So this is a rather curious thing that you have in theory.

133
00:15:11,440 --> 00:15:18,400
Right, which is enshrined by law in a law that a person would prefer not to have been passed.

134
00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:25,600
And conscientious objection laws tends to be put forward as a kind of compromise, but really,

135
00:15:25,600 --> 00:15:32,680
therefore, to try to help make more acceptable a law to introduce a certain practise.

136
00:15:32,680 --> 00:15:37,630
And if you have if you think that the practise might be unethical or harmful,

137
00:15:37,630 --> 00:15:46,570
then then to to be in favour of conscientious objection might in fact, be to help promote the thing that you object to.

138
00:15:46,570 --> 00:15:52,610
It's a kind of fig leaf for the acceptability of a practise.

139
00:15:52,610 --> 00:15:58,460
So better, rather than thinking about what my feelings are to think about the practises.

140
00:15:58,460 --> 00:16:03,530
And should these practises be part of medicine or not, should assisting suicide be part of medicine or not?

141
00:16:03,530 --> 00:16:10,640
That's the key question. Rather than the idea of a conscientious objection, which is itself, I think,

142
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:20,060
a very slippery notion and doesn't deliver what people who are in favour of the objection might might hope.

143
00:16:20,060 --> 00:16:28,190
So I'm not arguing that there's no value in promoting inclusive city and working practises or

144
00:16:28,190 --> 00:16:34,430
there's no value in trying to accommodate people's conscience as part of living together,

145
00:16:34,430 --> 00:16:44,960
working together in society. But the notion of a conscientious objection as a kind of practise or a right seems to me not a helpful model.

146
00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:49,520
It gives the impression of an absolute right, which is simply not credible.

147
00:16:49,520 --> 00:16:55,580
It encourages moral issues to be thought of as private, whereas moral issues are precisely public.

148
00:16:55,580 --> 00:17:02,900
I think I think that the law is about the imposing of morality and it promotes a weak compromise,

149
00:17:02,900 --> 00:17:08,390
which in the end satisfies neither the objectors nor the majority.

150
00:17:08,390 --> 00:17:17,370
And on this note, I will hand over to Alberto to defend a conscientious objection.

151
00:17:17,370 --> 00:17:23,820
OK. Thank you. That's he was very convincing to me.

152
00:17:23,820 --> 00:17:29,010
Now let me just remind you, because some people might have come online a bit later.

153
00:17:29,010 --> 00:17:32,820
So what we are doing is we are defending the position. We don't agree with.

154
00:17:32,820 --> 00:17:36,840
So if you hear me talking now about in favour of conscientious objection,

155
00:17:36,840 --> 00:17:43,200
that's precisely because I disagree with that idea, because these are going you what I'm about to say.

156
00:17:43,200 --> 00:17:52,830
So but anyway, here is my conscience hat on and here is my strongest case in favour of conscientious objection in medicine.

157
00:17:52,830 --> 00:18:01,410
And the obvious starting point for me is the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, which says that people,

158
00:18:01,410 --> 00:18:07,560
every human being has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

159
00:18:07,560 --> 00:18:14,100
So these three things are put together by the idea of conscience is really the most important concept here,

160
00:18:14,100 --> 00:18:23,160
because we have to remember that when we talk about conscientious objection, we often think about objections based on personal religious views.

161
00:18:23,160 --> 00:18:30,510
But the notion is actually quite broader because people might be morally strongly opposed to certain practises.

162
00:18:30,510 --> 00:18:36,410
For example, most obviously abortion quite independently of their religious views.

163
00:18:36,410 --> 00:18:43,590
So the first thing to clarify is that conscientious objection is not meant to be privilege for religious people.

164
00:18:43,590 --> 00:18:45,630
It's not just about religion.

165
00:18:45,630 --> 00:18:56,580
So the principle of freedom of conscience is a secular principle that applies to any moral view, whether religiously based or not.

166
00:18:56,580 --> 00:18:59,760
And actually, it should be people who are not religious,

167
00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:05,850
people who are secular in a sense that should be strongly in favour of conscientious objection,

168
00:19:05,850 --> 00:19:18,710
because freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are some of the basic principles of liberal societies,

169
00:19:18,710 --> 00:19:24,800
and they are not really related to any particular religious view. Now, if we talk about freedom of conscience.

170
00:19:24,800 --> 00:19:33,150
So we want this concept of freedom to be meaningful. So what does it mean to be free to do something?

171
00:19:33,150 --> 00:19:36,960
Of course, none of us is completely free to do anything.

172
00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:44,670
There are always limits that the law or the social expectation pose on things that we can do.

173
00:19:44,670 --> 00:20:00,030
But we want the cost of freedom to be meaningful. And so we want the limits that are post on our freedom to be as small, as minimal as possible.

174
00:20:00,030 --> 00:20:09,990
And in the case of the health care profession, if the condition for entering this profession that in theory we are free to choose,

175
00:20:09,990 --> 00:20:17,520
everyone is free to choose whatever profession they want. So if I am limited in my choice of joining a certain profession,

176
00:20:17,520 --> 00:20:22,100
because something that belongs to the profession of a few particular practise in that

177
00:20:22,100 --> 00:20:28,860
profession are things that a morally disapproval I morally against these practises,

178
00:20:28,860 --> 00:20:38,310
then it means that for me the choice is really between preserving my moral integrity and choosing to enter a profession.

179
00:20:38,310 --> 00:20:42,900
And to me, this sounds like a strong limitation of freedom of conscience.

180
00:20:42,900 --> 00:20:48,810
So one may say, yes, you're free to choose a profession, but once you choose a profession,

181
00:20:48,810 --> 00:20:53,220
then you have to stick to whatever requirements of profession entails.

182
00:20:53,220 --> 00:21:00,540
But that's really not compatible with a meaningful notion of freedom of conscience because it's quite a high price.

183
00:21:00,540 --> 00:21:08,820
They have to pay for my free choice to join the profession. So if we want to cut the concept of freedom of conscience to be meaningful,

184
00:21:08,820 --> 00:21:15,850
we need to make sure that the choice to join a certain profession is really a free choice.

185
00:21:15,850 --> 00:21:20,790
And the price that people would have to pay is not too large.

186
00:21:20,790 --> 00:21:25,560
So this is the first consideration in favour of conscientious objection in healthcare.

187
00:21:25,560 --> 00:21:34,190
And it's really rooted in U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which is one of the fundamental codes of regulating our societies.

188
00:21:34,190 --> 00:21:40,900
So it is the first thing. The second thing is related to the importance of moral integrity.

189
00:21:40,900 --> 00:21:44,890
Now, when we talk about conscientious objection in healthcare,

190
00:21:44,890 --> 00:21:55,050
although there are lots of practises that in theory and sometimes those in practise healthcare professionals can object to.

191
00:21:55,050 --> 00:22:00,980
So the most obvious example is the domain practise the domain,

192
00:22:00,980 --> 00:22:11,250
the stereotypical case of coaching objections because of a doctor or a healthcare provider more generally that doesn't want to take part in abortions.

193
00:22:11,250 --> 00:22:16,370
Now, abortion is obviously obviously a very controversial if.

194
00:22:16,370 --> 00:22:20,300
A controversial issue. It is widely debated.

195
00:22:20,300 --> 00:22:24,140
There is a lot of disagreement about the morality of abortion,

196
00:22:24,140 --> 00:22:31,550
but if I am morally opposed to abortion, either or second grounds or on religious grounds,

197
00:22:31,550 --> 00:22:41,810
and if I'm required by my job contract to perform an abortion, death to me is equivalent to being asked to perform to murder someone.

198
00:22:41,810 --> 00:22:54,770
So if for me, abortion is this morally equivalent as murder, asking me require me to perform an abortion would be a requirement to violate.

199
00:22:54,770 --> 00:23:03,200
So seriously, by that my moral integrity and to the extent that we value moral integrity, that signs that I should not be required to do that,

200
00:23:03,200 --> 00:23:10,130
at least for those practises that can be reasonably be thought to be ethically problematic.

201
00:23:10,130 --> 00:23:15,380
An abortion or euthanasia, for example, where it is legal is one of those things.

202
00:23:15,380 --> 00:23:19,600
So you would not ask anyone to murder someone.

203
00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:23,850
And in the same way, you should not ask a conscientious objector or someone else from the moral position

204
00:23:23,850 --> 00:23:28,400
or a religious opposition to abortion or euthanasia to perform these activities,

205
00:23:28,400 --> 00:23:33,560
which to these people are equivalent moral equivalent to murder.

206
00:23:33,560 --> 00:23:45,080
Now, of course, people who argue against conscientious objection do sometimes make his argument about sort of slippery slope argument.

207
00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:52,430
So the idea is that if you allow conscientious objection because of abortion or euthanasia or some other controversial part,

208
00:23:52,430 --> 00:23:57,530
maybe IVF, then any doctor can object to any health care provider.

209
00:23:57,530 --> 00:24:02,210
Just so we're not talking just about doctors and looking health care professionals more generally, nurses, for example.

210
00:24:02,210 --> 00:24:06,740
So any any health care professional can object to literally anything. So what what is the limit?

211
00:24:06,740 --> 00:24:14,060
For example, the Muslim doctors can object to medically inspected people of the opposite sex, which have been.

212
00:24:14,060 --> 00:24:18,110
So where do we stop? So what was the principle?

213
00:24:18,110 --> 00:24:22,880
But typically does working in favour of conscientious objection.

214
00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:26,500
Like me. So they did.

215
00:24:26,500 --> 00:24:30,740
They wanted to set some boundaries. Is so if you think something like abortion.

216
00:24:30,740 --> 00:24:36,200
So abortion is not the same as giving the vaccines or antibiotics or abortions with a peculiar practise.

217
00:24:36,200 --> 00:24:44,600
So there is a lot of reasonable disagreement about abortion. And in these not so obvious that abortion is or should be part of healthcare.

218
00:24:44,600 --> 00:24:55,070
So whether abortion is health care is quite a controversial topic and is one of those things where there is a reasonable disagreement.

219
00:24:55,070 --> 00:25:02,930
To many people, abortion is not properly health care and therefore it shouldn't be part of the requirements of health care professionals.

220
00:25:02,930 --> 00:25:06,170
So abortion. The reason is, for example,

221
00:25:06,170 --> 00:25:15,890
that some of my think that quite plausibly that the pregnancy is not a disease and therefore a health care provider is not under any at

222
00:25:15,890 --> 00:25:24,710
least ethical obligation or probably also professional obligation to to provide abortions because there is no disease to be treated.

223
00:25:24,710 --> 00:25:33,740
So that's you. And indeed, that may be the reason why many medical codes of many medical associations worldwide do have conscious closes.

224
00:25:33,740 --> 00:25:40,820
So do allow conscientious objection. So I will say that wherever there is some reasonable disagreement, for example, because of abortion,

225
00:25:40,820 --> 00:25:47,160
then a conscientious objection should be allowed because it makes sense to be against the idea that abortions,

226
00:25:47,160 --> 00:25:51,230
healthcare, for example, the same for euthanasia, for example.

227
00:25:51,230 --> 00:25:59,660
So we don't need to commit to that yet if anyone can object to anything just because we allow conscientious objection to abortion.

228
00:25:59,660 --> 00:26:09,740
Now, there is another issue about conscientious objection to referring patients.

229
00:26:09,740 --> 00:26:15,110
So this is something David mentioned as well. So one might say that, OK.

230
00:26:15,110 --> 00:26:19,850
If you allow you to object to conscientious objection to providing a certain service,

231
00:26:19,850 --> 00:26:27,890
at least you need to make sure that your patient does receive the service that they are entitled to receive.

232
00:26:27,890 --> 00:26:31,310
And that implies, at the very least, that you should, first of all,

233
00:26:31,310 --> 00:26:37,040
inform the patient that whatever they might need to require is an option available to them.

234
00:26:37,040 --> 00:26:48,710
And secondly, facilitate access to the service by referring patients to, for example, one of your colleagues that you know is available to provide it.

235
00:26:48,710 --> 00:26:57,860
But again, that depends a lot on how any single health care provider conceives of the idea of complicit in the wrongdoing.

236
00:26:57,860 --> 00:27:01,700
If someone is a committed Roman Catholic, for example,

237
00:27:01,700 --> 00:27:12,710
then a referral for an abortion clinic is morally equivalent to doing it to performing the abortion itself.

238
00:27:12,710 --> 00:27:16,450
So this will be a form of cooperation in the wrongdoing that according to the.

239
00:27:16,450 --> 00:27:21,040
Doctrine is imperviousness, what the country will call material cooperation.

240
00:27:21,040 --> 00:27:29,500
In doing so, it's not acceptable because it is the same thing as if someone comes to you and ask you to murder someone and you say,

241
00:27:29,500 --> 00:27:31,480
no, sorry, I can do that.

242
00:27:31,480 --> 00:27:38,020
But he just said, but let me let me tell you, it is this guy down the road who you can go there and ask this guy and he would perform.

243
00:27:38,020 --> 00:27:42,880
He would murder this person for you. So that would be seriously, ethically wrong for me.

244
00:27:42,880 --> 00:27:47,860
So in the same way as I should be free not to perform an abortion because of my moral integrity,

245
00:27:47,860 --> 00:27:57,720
because my freedom of conscience in the same way, I shouldn't be required to refer someone for what it take to be murder.

246
00:27:57,720 --> 00:28:06,160
And after all. So, as David said, we do have conscious clauses in other areas and these are normally they can not to be problematic.

247
00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:13,600
So the most obvious example is the military conscription. So in the case of military service, it's typically been the case.

248
00:28:13,600 --> 00:28:19,150
Pacifists or more in general or those who have some strong moral push up to war.

249
00:28:19,150 --> 00:28:26,060
They were exempted from doing something precisely because of freedom of conscience, for the peace of principle.

250
00:28:26,060 --> 00:28:31,780
Freedom of conscience is considered so important that people were allowed not to go to war,

251
00:28:31,780 --> 00:28:36,220
for example, even when that was on otherwise and legal requirements in their country.

252
00:28:36,220 --> 00:28:41,470
So in the same way as someone can opt out from doing something that they consider

253
00:28:41,470 --> 00:28:46,060
morally wrong indicates that military service in the same way that it should be.

254
00:28:46,060 --> 00:28:53,020
So the same principle should be applied to health care provision because it's killing someone in war.

255
00:28:53,020 --> 00:28:58,850
For some people is as morally wrong as killing someone, for example, a foetus in a HEATHCOCK context.

256
00:28:58,850 --> 00:29:07,900
So there is no more difference. From the point of view, one is subjective morality.

257
00:29:07,900 --> 00:29:13,600
We can also think about other cases in history where.

258
00:29:13,600 --> 00:29:17,770
We now see that it was a good thing that we allowed or not that to be allowed,

259
00:29:17,770 --> 00:29:21,940
but that there were people who did conscientious objector certain practises.

260
00:29:21,940 --> 00:29:27,220
So the most obvious example is the case of the Nazi medical practises and medical experiments.

261
00:29:27,220 --> 00:29:36,100
So now we know now we see that what a Nazi did in most cases when they carried out medical experiments was seriously,

262
00:29:36,100 --> 00:29:42,330
seriously morally wrong because these experiments were performed without the consent of participants.

263
00:29:42,330 --> 00:29:46,870
They were very harmful. They were clearly unethical by contemporary ethical standards.

264
00:29:46,870 --> 00:29:52,180
And back in those days, there were people who were deemed conscientious objector.

265
00:29:52,180 --> 00:29:59,380
These practises, some doctors refused to take part in these experiments precisely because they were unethical.

266
00:29:59,380 --> 00:30:06,820
So it was a good thing that people were allowed sorry that people did conscientiously object.

267
00:30:06,820 --> 00:30:14,560
Whether or not they were allowed. That's not true. The point here, the point is that in the same way, if we think of certain practises today,

268
00:30:14,560 --> 00:30:20,530
like, for example, abortion or other things dying, you have that context, which is funny.

269
00:30:20,530 --> 00:30:26,080
It's good that there are some people who continue to object because these are a sort of

270
00:30:26,080 --> 00:30:34,390
reminder like of being a bit humble when we make our judgements about healthcare procedures,

271
00:30:34,390 --> 00:30:39,880
because after all, we might be wrong about the ethics of abortion. We might be wrong about the ethics of euthanasia.

272
00:30:39,880 --> 00:30:48,670
When I say ethics, I mean what is encoded in current guidelines. So maybe maybe it is true that abortion is ethically wrong and maybe it is true.

273
00:30:48,670 --> 00:30:52,360
It is a good thing that these these days are people who do conscientious objector,

274
00:30:52,360 --> 00:30:59,870
because that reminds us that, you know, we make mistakes in our ethical assessments made.

275
00:30:59,870 --> 00:31:09,250
Maybe the current medicine is not as bad as Nazi menacing, but is at least seriously, ethically flawed and conscientious objection.

276
00:31:09,250 --> 00:31:12,430
So our right to conscientious objection is a constant reminder that we should

277
00:31:12,430 --> 00:31:18,670
always be careful and always examine the ethics of current health care procedures.

278
00:31:18,670 --> 00:31:22,750
I think I ran out of time, so. That's right.

279
00:31:22,750 --> 00:31:29,360
That was fifteen minutes, I suppose. Where do you think that it was found?

280
00:31:29,360 --> 00:31:35,660
Well, I. Obviously, I find myself agreeing with large parts of it, despite myself.

281
00:31:35,660 --> 00:31:43,370
But I think some things were a bit quick.

282
00:31:43,370 --> 00:31:47,690
And I just pick you up on. At the end. That I think it is.

283
00:31:47,690 --> 00:31:51,090
I think it is an important point.

284
00:31:51,090 --> 00:32:05,780
The people who objected to the Nazi medicine and we think of the twin experiments with in Auschwitz and so on Mengele.

285
00:32:05,780 --> 00:32:17,450
But but more so really the euthanasia of of disabled people, young people with cognitive impairments,

286
00:32:17,450 --> 00:32:26,120
large scale euthanasia practised very, very corrupting, very harmful.

287
00:32:26,120 --> 00:32:29,930
Alas, few people did object. Most people went along with it.

288
00:32:29,930 --> 00:32:38,540
But some people did object. But they didn't object because they had a right to conscientious objection which was enshrined.

289
00:32:38,540 --> 00:32:42,060
And they would not have wanted and I would not want a law.

290
00:32:42,060 --> 00:32:50,930
It says, yes, let's have large scale killing off of of children with intellectual disabilities.

291
00:32:50,930 --> 00:32:54,950
But you get a conscience clause with it.

292
00:32:54,950 --> 00:32:58,550
So the the the Nazis had neither of those things.

293
00:32:58,550 --> 00:33:04,300
They didn't have the conscience clause and they did have the bad medicine. So I agree that.

294
00:33:04,300 --> 00:33:11,490
Trouble some people, people who refuse, people who follow their conscience are sometimes useful,

295
00:33:11,490 --> 00:33:22,440
but I think sadly, if you do, then follow your conscience and sometimes you will have to pay a price for that.

296
00:33:22,440 --> 00:33:27,090
What I don't think is realistic is the notion that you can have an exemption in advance

297
00:33:27,090 --> 00:33:33,190
so you don't have to pay a price so you can be exempt from doing these things.

298
00:33:33,190 --> 00:33:37,870
So I say, well, I won't do it. I'll just have my my my exemption. Thank you.

299
00:33:37,870 --> 00:33:42,760
And the rest of the practise will still carry on unaffected.

300
00:33:42,760 --> 00:33:49,960
And this is a problem I have with the way in which country conscientious objection seems to be set up as a sort of compromise.

301
00:33:49,960 --> 00:33:54,220
The practise itself, the objectionable practise, is untouched.

302
00:33:54,220 --> 00:34:01,610
I must carry on exactly as before. The person who objects is supposed to be completely protected.

303
00:34:01,610 --> 00:34:07,180
And I think that neither of those things are quite realistic. If I object, it will have effects on other people.

304
00:34:07,180 --> 00:34:13,180
And if I object, I will probably have to pay a price for it. But I still say maybe I should object sometimes.

305
00:34:13,180 --> 00:34:18,440
Maybe I should refuse sometimes. But not because there is a bright start to the practise of conscientious objection.

306
00:34:18,440 --> 00:34:21,190
Now, because that we have a general, conscientious objection practise.

307
00:34:21,190 --> 00:34:37,270
But because this is this is all all I can do if I mean, if I worked in a supermarket I might object to to selling cigarettes on the basis of health.

308
00:34:37,270 --> 00:34:44,050
Maybe they would accommodate this this maybe they wouldn't accommodate this if they didn't accommodate it

309
00:34:44,050 --> 00:34:53,950
might be a price that I might have to pay and I might accept that as part of the value of of what I did.

310
00:34:53,950 --> 00:35:01,090
As a matter of state and the traditional view. So I think that we should celebrate the martyrs.

311
00:35:01,090 --> 00:35:05,700
And I think that we should. Do something.

312
00:35:05,700 --> 00:35:10,290
I think that the compromise that we have with the the practise of conscientious objection

313
00:35:10,290 --> 00:35:16,310
has a neat as a neat compromise where the the objective doesn't have to pay a price.

314
00:35:16,310 --> 00:35:25,230
And the and the and the practise can go ahead untouched. I think that that's unrealistic as as a as an idea, as an ideal.

315
00:35:25,230 --> 00:35:30,430
And it tends to satisfy neither. I know. So that's my problem with with conscientious objection.

316
00:35:30,430 --> 00:35:32,130
No, they you shouldn't sometimes object.

317
00:35:32,130 --> 00:35:40,770
Another some practises might be wrong because the the institution can get things wrong and thus the law can get things wrong.

318
00:35:40,770 --> 00:35:49,900
Certainly. But the idea that the law could get things so wrong but still get it right that I can have my my little objection.

319
00:35:49,900 --> 00:35:53,490
You know, that's that's that's the thing that I find difficult.

320
00:35:53,490 --> 00:36:02,190
The notion of the neat, conscientious objection as as as it gets out of jail free card.

321
00:36:02,190 --> 00:36:08,790
But one which doesn't really touch the practise of the objectionable practise in medicine.

322
00:36:08,790 --> 00:36:12,220
Bitsie. OK. So just two quick reply on these.

323
00:36:12,220 --> 00:36:16,360
So you. I think so. We we we are moving up to different level this point,

324
00:36:16,360 --> 00:36:27,160
because you pick up at the last point of my argument and this was about so the nice example, the Nazi example.

325
00:36:27,160 --> 00:36:31,390
So now you're talking about the level of the low.

326
00:36:31,390 --> 00:36:37,630
So whether or not there should be a right to continually object.

327
00:36:37,630 --> 00:36:41,230
I was in so that that's one level.

328
00:36:41,230 --> 00:36:46,720
And I brought some reason for why there should be such a right and based on freedom of conscience and protection of more integrity.

329
00:36:46,720 --> 00:36:50,680
Now, that example was meant to address a different point that that yes.

330
00:36:50,680 --> 00:36:53,760
That sometimes conscientious objectors.

331
00:36:53,760 --> 00:37:03,420
I'm actually doing the right thing, are doing a good thing, which is something that people opposed to conscientious objection often denied.

332
00:37:03,420 --> 00:37:08,850
So some is someone people who are opposed to conscientious objection often would think that a doctor who

333
00:37:08,850 --> 00:37:17,790
refuses to provide an abortion is doing something wrong because the doctor is denying a woman a right.

334
00:37:17,790 --> 00:37:22,330
And my point was meant to to counter the arguments that.

335
00:37:22,330 --> 00:37:29,340
Yes, that maybe doctors or health care providers who conscientious object are actually doing something good.

336
00:37:29,340 --> 00:37:35,760
So this is a different letter. So it's not about whether this is right or wrong to allow conscientious objection.

337
00:37:35,760 --> 00:37:40,900
It's about whether conscientious objectors might have thought I would be doing something that is the right thing to do.

338
00:37:40,900 --> 00:37:45,120
Enough already. If you think about the nice example you can make at some point,

339
00:37:45,120 --> 00:37:51,210
because he mentioned that so the Nazi were carrying out the experiments and experiments.

340
00:37:51,210 --> 00:38:02,580
But imagine that there was like a clause in the in the law back then allowing people to opt out from like see doctors to opt out of these practises.

341
00:38:02,580 --> 00:38:10,080
What would have happened is that probably. So if there did actually if there had been such freedom and if there'd been a real freedom,

342
00:38:10,080 --> 00:38:16,470
then probably most doctors would have opted out with the result that these unethical practises, it will never had happened.

343
00:38:16,470 --> 00:38:19,080
It may be the same would happen now with abortion.

344
00:38:19,080 --> 00:38:26,400
If abortion is actually unethical, maybe it'd be good if people like healthcare providers are actually free not to do that,

345
00:38:26,400 --> 00:38:29,980
because that would likely change things,

346
00:38:29,980 --> 00:38:35,710
which is something that couldn't happen in the case of the Nazi experiments because there wasn't a conscientious objection.

347
00:38:35,710 --> 00:38:46,450
But if there had been a conscientious objection to that big event, then maybe most of the atrocities that we noted Nazi did wouldn't have happened.

348
00:38:46,450 --> 00:38:54,450
Yeah, I think this was. Now.

349
00:38:54,450 --> 00:38:59,140
I think lease. Are you there or Mike?

350
00:38:59,140 --> 00:39:03,490
I am. Yes. How do we want to proceed with this?

351
00:39:03,490 --> 00:39:08,710
Well, we've actually got three questions come in already. They're quite lengthy ones.

352
00:39:08,710 --> 00:39:13,420
Would you be willing to take questions now? Yeah, I think so, yeah, yeah.

353
00:39:13,420 --> 00:39:17,700
I'm happy to charities Q&A thing. All right.

354
00:39:17,700 --> 00:39:21,900
I'm happy to charity's Q&A. I will do my best. Yes. Okay.

355
00:39:21,900 --> 00:39:27,380
So the first question has come in from Valaria and is directed to David.

356
00:39:27,380 --> 00:39:30,720
And she says, again, this is quite a lengthy question. So bear with me.

357
00:39:30,720 --> 00:39:36,060
As I read said in the debate, we mainly covered points concerning ethics and choice.

358
00:39:36,060 --> 00:39:43,170
However, from a pragmatic point of view, when conscientious objection creates such to the likes of citizens, how can we proceed?

359
00:39:43,170 --> 00:39:47,880
To better explain my question in Latin, the region in which room is located.

360
00:39:47,880 --> 00:39:53,310
There are only four hospitals that choose to perform abortion, but of this, four in only one.

361
00:39:53,310 --> 00:39:57,570
The reduction is not objecting to be precise one doctor.

362
00:39:57,570 --> 00:40:02,340
This endangers the life of women in the region, especially those from less fortunate backgrounds.

363
00:40:02,340 --> 00:40:08,700
How can we ensure that if the Italian law permits abortion, this practise is provided to all and in a safe way.

364
00:40:08,700 --> 00:40:12,150
Thank you. Well, thank you.

365
00:40:12,150 --> 00:40:18,390
Well. I'm here to argue against conscientious objection.

366
00:40:18,390 --> 00:40:26,160
And that's not a strong argument against conscientious objection that if you have enough people object,

367
00:40:26,160 --> 00:40:35,250
then you don't have the provision of the service. So if the country as a whole has thought that this is a good service to be provided,

368
00:40:35,250 --> 00:40:43,950
then then there is a real problem about how you do that at the same time as as allowing conscientious objection,

369
00:40:43,950 --> 00:40:48,330
particularly if there's no no sense of cost with regard to conscientious objection.

370
00:40:48,330 --> 00:40:57,390
So I. I think yes, precisely.

371
00:40:57,390 --> 00:41:04,380
If you object to abortion, then it is it seems to me to be clearer that you just have a far more restrictive

372
00:41:04,380 --> 00:41:10,260
kind of abortion law as Ireland just have prior to about two years ago.

373
00:41:10,260 --> 00:41:15,630
And under that baby, you didn't have a conscientious objection law.

374
00:41:15,630 --> 00:41:25,590
You had you had a law which was directed in regards to the to the to the to the issue of abortion.

375
00:41:25,590 --> 00:41:33,420
If you if you have conscientious objection, which is in practise becoming a sort of a restriction on abortion,

376
00:41:33,420 --> 00:41:40,920
what you have is something which is very random and uneven. And it might be the one doctor does does lots of lots of abortions,

377
00:41:40,920 --> 00:41:50,480
which are which are people who jetro Bushin would think or particularly bad and other doctors.

378
00:41:50,480 --> 00:41:56,100
They they don't allow any kind of abortion at all, even in cases of of of danger to the mother's life cases,

379
00:41:56,100 --> 00:42:02,460
which would have been acceptable in probably would be acceptable in law.

380
00:42:02,460 --> 00:42:17,280
So I think that is a problem with conscientious objection if it if it gets to the level of of interrupting the provision of a practise.

381
00:42:17,280 --> 00:42:24,980
So get cast on something about what I think. A defender of conscientious objection wouldn't apply, would lesser.

382
00:42:24,980 --> 00:42:28,460
So how the defender, of course, objection would answer his question.

383
00:42:28,460 --> 00:42:34,790
So assuming that I'm still doing the parts, I completely agree with the point of the question, assuming it has to be in that park.

384
00:42:34,790 --> 00:42:43,610
So the main argument is that. Will be that the right of women to access abortion?

385
00:42:43,610 --> 00:42:51,020
So there is not there is no corresponding duty by an individual to provide the service.

386
00:42:51,020 --> 00:42:56,160
So sometimes there are rights that people have. But there is no corresponding duty.

387
00:42:56,160 --> 00:43:05,120
So in the case of Eataly, for example, the fact that the women have a right to abortion simply means that abortion is legal.

388
00:43:05,120 --> 00:43:15,500
So it's an option is not criminalised. But that doesn't mean that someone has the corresponding duty to provide service.

389
00:43:15,500 --> 00:43:21,230
If someone is available to provide it, that's good. And so then that's fine.

390
00:43:21,230 --> 00:43:26,290
But we shouldn't assume that individual health care providers have a right ever.

391
00:43:26,290 --> 00:43:32,360
So you have a duty to provide the service. So this is what a defender of conscientious objection would say is not what they would say.

392
00:43:32,360 --> 00:43:38,450
What is what? They're good. Can we have another question?

393
00:43:38,450 --> 00:43:38,690
Yeah.

394
00:43:38,690 --> 00:43:48,500
I was just having a quick look through the questions, I think this one related to this, which is a question directed towards LBJ and the attendees,

395
00:43:48,500 --> 00:43:55,270
says, I believe that abortion is part of health care because prevention of disease or health promotion is considered to be part of a doctor's work.

396
00:43:55,270 --> 00:43:59,780
And abortion by medical professionals can prevent some grave health related consequences,

397
00:43:59,780 --> 00:44:06,620
which may happen if abortion is conducted by non medical professionals or if the women continues the pregnancy.

398
00:44:06,620 --> 00:44:11,510
Is there anything else that you could explain more regarding excluding abortion from health care?

399
00:44:11,510 --> 00:44:19,940
Is that any other example other than abortion that you consider is not part of health care, even though it's in the current society?

400
00:44:19,940 --> 00:44:27,870
Yeah. So I think the problem is so there's a question about what is health care and maybe related, what is a disease.

401
00:44:27,870 --> 00:44:34,600
So one problem with this line of argument is that.

402
00:44:34,600 --> 00:44:37,690
So if if if you if you consider something as part of health care,

403
00:44:37,690 --> 00:44:43,870
simply because if there was no health care provider doing that thing, then things would be worse.

404
00:44:43,870 --> 00:44:49,480
So I I think that this will be this will entail up to a broad understanding of health care,

405
00:44:49,480 --> 00:44:58,310
because there are lots of things that would fall under this category if this is the criteria for inclusion into health care, for example.

406
00:44:58,310 --> 00:45:11,300
We think so. Well, when this is a quite controversial sort of female genital sculpting, for example, is a part of Patika.

407
00:45:11,300 --> 00:45:19,910
So many people would say no. But if someone said about the alternatives that people do these things or even circumcision for male.

408
00:45:19,910 --> 00:45:23,750
So maybe we'll say, yeah. But if people do these things themselves, that will be worse.

409
00:45:23,750 --> 00:45:31,010
So we might as well have a doctor doing that. And then what about torture or capital punishment?

410
00:45:31,010 --> 00:45:35,770
So. Artistry is part of Africa. I would say no.

411
00:45:35,770 --> 00:45:46,330
But you've got 30 is OK. We can talk to someone without some medical experts that knows when he too much more than that.

412
00:45:46,330 --> 00:45:50,060
We've got him. I but this doesn't mean to have torture. He's the Afghan.

413
00:45:50,060 --> 00:45:57,070
So the same would apply to abortion. So I'm afraid that could criterion sort of prove the matter with you.

414
00:45:57,070 --> 00:46:02,430
Conveys a notion of how it's going to broad. So I wouldn't go down that path.

415
00:46:02,430 --> 00:46:09,040
Kind of. Can I also say that I think that even if something is not health care is done by health care professionals, but it is not health care.

416
00:46:09,040 --> 00:46:14,680
That doesn't mean to say that your conscience has more or less play.

417
00:46:14,680 --> 00:46:18,070
I think I mean, if you just take capital punishment,

418
00:46:18,070 --> 00:46:28,540
say a prison decided that they the the the they are going to have lethal injection capital punishment.

419
00:46:28,540 --> 00:46:33,880
And it was going to be done by the doctor for the prison. And they made that part of the contract.

420
00:46:33,880 --> 00:46:43,210
Then they then send somebody else might they might object and then they might cease to be you know,

421
00:46:43,210 --> 00:46:48,520
they might lose their job as they as the as the prison chaplain.

422
00:46:48,520 --> 00:46:57,970
But I think it would seem a little odd to me to say, well, we have let's have capital punishment.

423
00:46:57,970 --> 00:47:02,890
But let's let's let's allow conscientious objection.

424
00:47:02,890 --> 00:47:04,150
I mean, they might say, well,

425
00:47:04,150 --> 00:47:10,420
we'll we'll find easier to get a prison doctor if we if we allow a little latitude here and we get somebody else in to do it.

426
00:47:10,420 --> 00:47:17,440
But it seems to me if it as a matter of contract, we'll say I have a company that does that.

427
00:47:17,440 --> 00:47:25,290
That isn't about the beauty products. And there are some they've done some cosmetic surgery.

428
00:47:25,290 --> 00:47:34,270
And so there are some some doctors who do cosmetic surgery. And then you have to have someone who objects to a particular kind of cosmetic surgery.

429
00:47:34,270 --> 00:47:41,920
They object to lightening the skin or they object to changing the shape of the eyes to make them look more European.

430
00:47:41,920 --> 00:47:47,020
So they say, oh, I won't do that. I'm well, I might accept that or might not accept that.

431
00:47:47,020 --> 00:47:58,750
But it it seems to me that's the that then the argument between the employer and the person who as as a surgeon does these things,

432
00:47:58,750 --> 00:48:07,360
it doesn't is not obvious to me that this is is helped by having a category of conscientious objection, which is a which is a sort of legal category.

433
00:48:07,360 --> 00:48:17,100
So so I can't sack the surgeon if the surgeon doesn't want to do it, even if that's actually what a lot of the business entails.

434
00:48:17,100 --> 00:48:24,520
And the fact that the fact that that it's health care or not doesn't seem to me to be to be a factor here.

435
00:48:24,520 --> 00:48:31,150
What's a factor is just to need somebody to deliver a service so you can you require somebody to give a service.

436
00:48:31,150 --> 00:48:39,920
Should people object? I think some people some sometimes should object. But sometimes if you object, you'll pay a price.

437
00:48:39,920 --> 00:48:46,490
Thank you. I'm I'm sure there are some questions that are relevant to thoughts that come in, but there's quite a lot of questions.

438
00:48:46,490 --> 00:48:51,680
I think we'll just continue to take them in order and hopefully we'll we'll get some order out of chaos.

439
00:48:51,680 --> 00:48:55,730
David Battisti says that this is a question for both of you.

440
00:48:55,730 --> 00:48:59,060
Thank you for your brilliant speeches and your opinions.

441
00:48:59,060 --> 00:49:06,650
Does arguing edge conscientious objection mean being committed to a sort of moral objectivism or even a sort of moral realism?

442
00:49:06,650 --> 00:49:12,790
What is the matter ethical assumption that stands behind this argument?

443
00:49:12,790 --> 00:49:18,020
I don't think he would give us a better June two yet, so I.

444
00:49:18,020 --> 00:49:23,270
So I think the hearing is is a bit complicated.

445
00:49:23,270 --> 00:49:28,090
I think this will require some philosophical discussion with maybe is a bit too abstract for this kind of forum.

446
00:49:28,090 --> 00:49:33,300
But so in short, I think. Yes. Sure.

447
00:49:33,300 --> 00:49:38,450
Arguing against conscientious objection commits to some form of objectivism.

448
00:49:38,450 --> 00:49:47,420
What I think is that arguing in favour of conscientious objection commits people to some form of moral relativism.

449
00:49:47,420 --> 00:49:51,950
So. No, I not know, I speak neither. Neither does somebody favourable, I guess.

450
00:49:51,950 --> 00:49:57,310
These are these are more like concentric points. So I think that, like endorsing conscientious objection,

451
00:49:57,310 --> 00:50:09,280
chametz people to a certain form of moral relativism with regard to at least the principle of medical ethics, but more generally, actually.

452
00:50:09,280 --> 00:50:15,760
Because the deal is that the position of those who say think of certain practises,

453
00:50:15,760 --> 00:50:19,660
ethical or require some practise abortion and the position of those who are

454
00:50:19,660 --> 00:50:23,410
against this practise or think this practise unethical are on equal footing.

455
00:50:23,410 --> 00:50:29,380
So the idea behind conscientious objection is that we need to respect both in the same way.

456
00:50:29,380 --> 00:50:35,320
So that's important for people who are in favour of conscientious objection.

457
00:50:35,320 --> 00:50:39,430
So it's not that they try to undermine the provision of the service. That's not the point.

458
00:50:39,430 --> 00:50:45,040
So the point is that it's really about my own moral integrity. So I want to keep my hands clean.

459
00:50:45,040 --> 00:50:52,030
So I really I'm not interested in whether this person does or does not get an abortion or Tiffani's or whatever.

460
00:50:52,030 --> 00:50:56,890
That's not my business. So I'm only interested in preserving my conscience. So my moral integrity.

461
00:50:56,890 --> 00:51:02,680
So the view here is that my view about abortion, my ethical view against abortion,

462
00:51:02,680 --> 00:51:08,890
should be given the same weight as the the view of the person who request abortion.

463
00:51:08,890 --> 00:51:12,800
So they are on equal footing. So in this sense, yes, I think.

464
00:51:12,800 --> 00:51:18,230
Defending conscientious objection commits people to a certain form of moral relativism, which I don't say is a good or a bad thing.

465
00:51:18,230 --> 00:51:22,030
But. Conceptually, I think that's true. I think.

466
00:51:22,030 --> 00:51:32,230
Well, you have an irony here that the traditions which are most strongly opposed to moral relativism, which are objectivist in terms of natural law.

467
00:51:32,230 --> 00:51:35,460
Pro-life view about the status of the embryo and so on.

468
00:51:35,460 --> 00:51:45,720
They they also have have bought in to conscientious objection as a way to preserve something when they can't get everything.

469
00:51:45,720 --> 00:51:57,090
So whereas a people that whereas the the the advocates of of both abortion and assisted suicide,

470
00:51:57,090 --> 00:52:05,700
which are which are laws where you've where you often have a statutory right for conscientious objection,

471
00:52:05,700 --> 00:52:11,840
those days have often come out of a sort of liberalism.

472
00:52:11,840 --> 00:52:21,150
And so people have said, well, you can't you can't define in advance what makes a good death or you can't say.

473
00:52:21,150 --> 00:52:25,530
But whether this is a whether this is valuable or not, wrong or not.

474
00:52:25,530 --> 00:52:37,560
So we should allow because of the pluralism, we should allow permissive laws on abortion, not which allow permissive laws on on assisted suicide.

475
00:52:37,560 --> 00:52:44,790
And in theory, those would also go with moral pluralism for as a basis for conscientious objection.

476
00:52:44,790 --> 00:52:46,380
So I think that you can have both.

477
00:52:46,380 --> 00:52:53,850
You can both have Objectivists who want to have some conscientious objection and you can have pluralists sue one time,

478
00:52:53,850 --> 00:53:02,330
some conscience action and you can have pluralists. You think that that's you.

479
00:53:02,330 --> 00:53:12,210
Now, I've got myself confused, but I think that there are there were ways in which both think both both of those views can be can be accepted.

480
00:53:12,210 --> 00:53:16,940
I think. All right.

481
00:53:16,940 --> 00:53:23,530
Thank you, very Christian, for Roger Crisp. He says he thinks this is a question mainly for David.

482
00:53:23,530 --> 00:53:26,810
What about a country in which everyone believes that there should be a legal

483
00:53:26,810 --> 00:53:36,680
right to conscientious objection or one in which the majority believes this?

484
00:53:36,680 --> 00:53:46,960
So. Well. The process of the probe, some of the problems I had with with a conscientious objection, a,

485
00:53:46,960 --> 00:53:53,410
well, conscientious objection to what I would start with and and typically it's at least in law.

486
00:53:53,410 --> 00:54:00,710
It's been conscientious objection, for example, to conscription. So you have conscription, but you have conscientious objection.

487
00:54:00,710 --> 00:54:08,240
But you still have conscription and you still march off people to war with very little protection in terms of voluntariness.

488
00:54:08,240 --> 00:54:13,280
You don't have a voluntary army. You have a conscripted army, but you have some little exception.

489
00:54:13,280 --> 00:54:19,340
So the problem with conscientious objection, I think as a as a model, people might have it.

490
00:54:19,340 --> 00:54:31,790
But ironically, it might be a more heavy handed kind of society than one where you had genuine voluntariness.

491
00:54:31,790 --> 00:54:34,790
I mean, that's that's more that's most obviously the case with war.

492
00:54:34,790 --> 00:54:44,540
But that might also be the case in other areas of of of health care and and in regards to things like abortion and and and assisted suicide.

493
00:54:44,540 --> 00:55:00,380
I would say, well, what is the function of these of these conscientious objection laws and conscientious objection of elements within the law?

494
00:55:00,380 --> 00:55:10,820
Clearly, laws have passed the Bush, not 67, the California End of Life Options Act of of 2016.

495
00:55:10,820 --> 00:55:20,510
Laws have passed, which involve conscientious objection. And so there has been majority support for particular laws with conscientious objection.

496
00:55:20,510 --> 00:55:32,240
I just worry about the the effect of those laws that they might both be laws that allow things that I think I would prefer to restrict doesn't allow,

497
00:55:32,240 --> 00:55:39,360
and that they are more heavy handed than than than genuine voluntariness.

498
00:55:39,360 --> 00:55:48,710
And in areas of society. So I think that the notion of conscientious objection might be problematic, even if it were popular.

499
00:55:48,710 --> 00:55:56,780
Think about it. You want to comment on that at all or. No, I think it's the right question from running.

500
00:55:56,780 --> 00:56:01,360
Guilin might keep Earth to see the issue of killing.

501
00:56:01,360 --> 00:56:05,680
I think it is. And the contentious issue of the moral status of the foetus.

502
00:56:05,680 --> 00:56:11,080
Does disagreement about that entail Morello's relevant relative?

503
00:56:11,080 --> 00:56:16,690
Take it away. So I should go first.

504
00:56:16,690 --> 00:56:21,540
So I don't think this agreement entails more activism.

505
00:56:21,540 --> 00:56:24,870
What I think is that so? Because if you have disagreement, you might be the case.

506
00:56:24,870 --> 00:56:30,810
Someone is right and someone is wrong. He's not that person. Disagreement is a sign of anything.

507
00:56:30,810 --> 00:56:36,240
Otherwise, monotheism would be true because we all disagree about lots of things.

508
00:56:36,240 --> 00:56:44,710
The point is that. But is it what you decide to do with this agreement, with these agreement?

509
00:56:44,710 --> 00:56:49,300
That's my point to some form of moral relativism. For example, in this case.

510
00:56:49,300 --> 00:56:52,270
So the idea that we decided, since we have a disagreement,

511
00:56:52,270 --> 00:56:59,710
then we want to allow conscientious objection and therefore give all the positions, say equal weight.

512
00:56:59,710 --> 00:57:04,900
So we should respond if you ask those who object. We should respond in view of those who think abortion is fine.

513
00:57:04,900 --> 00:57:12,170
So pluralism itself, again, doesn't doesn't mean that relativism, but.

514
00:57:12,170 --> 00:57:17,440
Again, pluralism would require people to.

515
00:57:17,440 --> 00:57:23,860
Seemed to make some. It's not because we endorse pluralism, then we in the name of pluralism, we allow everything.

516
00:57:23,860 --> 00:57:32,710
We still need to decide what falls within the realm of what some might call a reasonable pluralism and what force outside.

517
00:57:32,710 --> 00:57:43,360
But that means that once we are within the reach of reasonable pluralism, then everything within this sphere is should be respecting the same way.

518
00:57:43,360 --> 00:57:53,480
And that aspect of pluralism, of reasonable pluralism, at least to me, and take some form of ethical relativism.

519
00:57:53,480 --> 00:58:00,140
In terms, for example, if you ask. So how should we treat or dispositions?

520
00:58:00,140 --> 00:58:04,130
And if the answer is I think we should, they should all be on equal footing. We should respect them all.

521
00:58:04,130 --> 00:58:09,620
We need a contest with pluralism that entails some form of political space, not disagreement.

522
00:58:09,620 --> 00:58:14,690
Percent is the way we treat these agreement when we put all these policemen on equal footing.

523
00:58:14,690 --> 00:58:28,350
That points to some form of relativism, as I see it. I think that the I think I agree with with Alberto that that it isn't about the fact

524
00:58:28,350 --> 00:58:33,850
of disagreement and there is disagreement and disagreement doesn't imply pluralism.

525
00:58:33,850 --> 00:58:40,020
It doesn't imply relativism. I think we were both agreed about that.

526
00:58:40,020 --> 00:58:47,130
But the question is what you do with disagreement and how you manage disagreements.

527
00:58:47,130 --> 00:58:54,330
Even disagreement within the realm of the of the reasonable. And I think where.

528
00:58:54,330 --> 00:59:03,880
Where? Where large bodies within society, communities within society have fundamental disagreements about moral issues,

529
00:59:03,880 --> 00:59:09,730
then that does that does create a problem for harmony within society.

530
00:59:09,730 --> 00:59:18,380
And it does create a problem for how we live, live together and how what we deliver it is particularly problematic because of health care.

531
00:59:18,380 --> 00:59:24,280
Now, if we have a national health care system or a largely insurance based health care system,

532
00:59:24,280 --> 00:59:29,620
which is very systematic, it is there's a question about what you provide or don't provide.

533
00:59:29,620 --> 00:59:39,580
Where are your defaults? So I think that we have to find ways within society of managing the fact of disagreement at the same

534
00:59:39,580 --> 00:59:47,200
time as trying to commit ourselves to coming to correct views which will protect the vulnerable people.

535
00:59:47,200 --> 00:59:58,390
I'm just not convinced. At least I'm here presenting in regards conscientious objection how useful this particular mechanism is.

536
00:59:58,390 --> 01:00:05,530
So conscientious objection is really wrong. Very narrow mechanism for dealing with some kinds of disagreement.

537
01:00:05,530 --> 01:00:10,570
It doesn't deal with it. There's a whole range of disagreements. It doesn't deal with.

538
01:00:10,570 --> 01:00:20,050
And and it's just really about and it's not also clear what it means in terms of what what is what does it mean to be permitted?

539
01:00:20,050 --> 01:00:30,550
Does it mean that you necessarily keep your job? Does it mean that you you can you can take a job which you normally would have a lot of

540
01:00:30,550 --> 01:00:35,890
this practise that it's not it's not clear what was implied by conscientious objection.

541
01:00:35,890 --> 01:00:40,210
So I think that you can have questions about the usefulness of conscientious objection

542
01:00:40,210 --> 01:00:46,700
as a way to deal with disagreement at the same time as acknowledging disagreement.

543
01:00:46,700 --> 01:00:52,410
And at the same time as saying that disagreement doesn't mean necessarily relativism.

544
01:00:52,410 --> 01:01:00,700
I think Kerry has a good question to follow on from that. And they say when when do you say that an objection is conscientious when your

545
01:01:00,700 --> 01:01:07,450
objections in health care a matter of preference rather than of conscience?

546
01:01:07,450 --> 01:01:11,770
For either of you, I think you want to go first, David,

547
01:01:11,770 --> 01:01:23,650
because of my objections are conscientious and you also might as a preference when in the end there is a difficulty of I mean,

548
01:01:23,650 --> 01:01:28,510
there are procedural rules that you can you can say, well, this is procedural.

549
01:01:28,510 --> 01:01:31,750
But I think there is a question about.

550
01:01:31,750 --> 01:01:38,840
If people don't want to do something when they say, well, this is the kind of this person doesn't want to do something good,

551
01:01:38,840 --> 01:01:41,960
which I'm going to give a very high status to and respect,

552
01:01:41,960 --> 01:01:50,930
and this is a an example of the person not wanting to do something that I'm not going to respect and I'm going to to penalise them in some ways.

553
01:01:50,930 --> 01:01:58,950
And the distinction between the two doesn't seem to me obvious at all.

554
01:01:58,950 --> 01:02:03,500
But pop some of those I can.

555
01:02:03,500 --> 01:02:12,980
So let us think what what the defender of conscientious objector was like me will say is that clearly in practise is difficult to distinguish.

556
01:02:12,980 --> 01:02:17,840
What is conscientious objection, what is just objection based on mere preference or convenience.

557
01:02:17,840 --> 01:02:22,280
For example, abortion is not a very pleasant procedure. So what?

558
01:02:22,280 --> 01:02:26,080
What we are sure to have and that doctor objects based on conscience rather,

559
01:02:26,080 --> 01:02:30,650
and based on convenience, that they just don't want to perform these things. That's true.

560
01:02:30,650 --> 01:02:39,020
But one might say that there are certain things that we can reasonably presume are a matter of conscience.

561
01:02:39,020 --> 01:02:46,250
For example, abortion for Catholic health care providers. That's what it has to be, a matter of conscience.

562
01:02:46,250 --> 01:02:51,260
Because what we know that abortion is considered a grave mortal sin by the Catholic Church.

563
01:02:51,260 --> 01:02:59,300
When I see someone objects, for example, to vaccination, say that if a doctor objects to vaccination, then we have more reasons to doubt.

564
01:02:59,300 --> 01:03:05,180
It is really a conscientious objection because as much as one can be opposed to vaccines for all sorts of reasons,

565
01:03:05,180 --> 01:03:13,890
it's very unlikely that is a matter of conscience in the same way as it is because of abortion or euthanasia or contraception or IVF or.

566
01:03:13,890 --> 01:03:19,490
Well, there are borderline Catholic animal experimentation, for example, maybe difficult to tell,

567
01:03:19,490 --> 01:03:23,840
but there are some clear case in which you can be rightly sure that something needs to be a matter of conscience.

568
01:03:23,840 --> 01:03:30,250
Although I agree that the concept of conscience is quite tricky.

569
01:03:30,250 --> 01:03:38,310
We have a question in from Emma for the person speaking for conscientious objection in relation to conscientious objection in medicine.

570
01:03:38,310 --> 01:03:42,780
You said the doctors should be able to object only to topics which are seen as polemical,

571
01:03:42,780 --> 01:03:47,270
such as abortion by many people, so that doctors did not start objecting to everything.

572
01:03:47,270 --> 01:03:53,280
But in that case, it seems to me the right to conscientious objection on an individual level will not be fulfilled because

573
01:03:53,280 --> 01:03:59,400
every individual choice or objection should be dependent on or determined by the social general choice.

574
01:03:59,400 --> 01:04:07,990
How is this an individual conscious objection? So.

575
01:04:07,990 --> 01:04:15,560
I think. Someone in federal court objection would probably not agree with the last part of the quote.

576
01:04:15,560 --> 01:04:23,280
That's part of the point, because they wouldn't we wouldn't say that social norms or social expectations should

577
01:04:23,280 --> 01:04:30,540
not set boundaries to just conscience because no one is really arguing for a limited,

578
01:04:30,540 --> 01:04:37,290
conscientious objection. And the idea is that since we live in a society where we need to make compromises all the time,

579
01:04:37,290 --> 01:04:45,390
then even the right to conscientious objection is limited by, for example, some basic social norms of social expectations.

580
01:04:45,390 --> 01:04:50,160
The point is that these boundaries are not dictated but by what is legal or not.

581
01:04:50,160 --> 01:04:52,710
So to what people have a right to receive or not.

582
01:04:52,710 --> 01:04:59,950
But it's always the case that every right we have, even if we believe in an right conscientious objection, even you think the country is important.

583
01:04:59,950 --> 01:05:06,490
You would never be an absolute right there, because, for example, my conscience can tell me to go and.

584
01:05:06,490 --> 01:05:11,390
No kidding, my annoying neighbour, but not doing that, so I'm joking.

585
01:05:11,390 --> 01:05:18,420
Look, I'm not doing that because rightly so, society and the law prevents me from doing that.

586
01:05:18,420 --> 01:05:25,050
So even the most strenuous defender of conscientious objection would never say to the right questions or objections and absence.

587
01:05:25,050 --> 01:05:31,270
Right. And it makes sense that our social expectations, the limit. These are right.

588
01:05:31,270 --> 01:05:36,400
Process of the question. David, do you want to comment at all or should we move on to.

589
01:05:36,400 --> 01:05:40,250
I think we can move on, right. We have a question for Peter.

590
01:05:40,250 --> 01:05:46,090
I suspect this might start quite a debate now that both of you have argued for and against this issue.

591
01:05:46,090 --> 01:05:51,760
And I mean, you as individuals have defended both positions in separate forums on different days.

592
01:05:51,760 --> 01:06:00,940
What could a compromise between the two positions look like? Do you see any avenue for negotiation or a practical way forward?

593
01:06:00,940 --> 01:06:10,210
So this might be a good moment to like that, because the question is, is it good bridge, too?

594
01:06:10,210 --> 01:06:17,890
Yeah, let's try. Do you agree with that? OK. You want to go first?

595
01:06:17,890 --> 01:06:27,550
OK, so I will now. We will now switch hats and I will define conscientious objection.

596
01:06:27,550 --> 01:06:33,270
I think. I don't know in advance.

597
01:06:33,270 --> 01:06:38,850
This is this is, in a way, the second attempt with with with Alberto.

598
01:06:38,850 --> 01:06:44,010
I have I have a discussion of a different kind.

599
01:06:44,010 --> 01:06:52,490
The first time we tried to have a discussion where we agreed about what we disagreed about, which, believe it or not, is really difficult,

600
01:06:52,490 --> 01:07:02,010
is really difficult to have a I have honest agreement where you have properly cat characterised the the the opposite view and then say,

601
01:07:02,010 --> 01:07:13,140
can we can we define what we disagree about? And I think probably we have to go back to that.

602
01:07:13,140 --> 01:07:19,390
I think that's that's one thing that I'll go to said right at the end.

603
01:07:19,390 --> 01:07:26,280
Nobody's defending an absolute right to conscientious objection. I think I would agree with that.

604
01:07:26,280 --> 01:07:42,450
So. So then the question is, if we think of other kinds of liberties and inclusive city, what's what might what might other concepts add to this?

605
01:07:42,450 --> 01:07:47,400
Because I do think I mean and this is what I partly agree with the opposite view.

606
01:07:47,400 --> 01:07:54,630
I'm arguing against. I do think conscientious objection at best is a very limited thing and is something which is often misunderstood

607
01:07:54,630 --> 01:08:05,130
so that we may make more progress with conscientious objection if we add it to questions like academic freedom.

608
01:08:05,130 --> 01:08:12,810
Freedom of association, tolerance in society and other kinds of of liberties.

609
01:08:12,810 --> 01:08:25,660
And then see how it might fit. But but it's some work that has hardly started in terms of work in progress out of that.

610
01:08:25,660 --> 01:08:30,760
Yes, sir. Yeah. With regard to compromise. That's interesting because.

611
01:08:30,760 --> 01:08:37,030
Conscientious objection is itself already a compromise script.

612
01:08:37,030 --> 01:08:38,690
Was it a significant compromise?

613
01:08:38,690 --> 01:08:47,300
And so the question now is how we compromise between what there really is a compromise and something something else now?

614
01:08:47,300 --> 01:08:51,500
No, I don't think that we need to compromise, Father.

615
01:08:51,500 --> 01:08:57,200
But. I if I can if I may like to rephrase the question.

616
01:08:57,200 --> 01:09:03,120
So what level should we have this discussion? And I think there is already.

617
01:09:03,120 --> 01:09:10,950
Enough room for discussing about the ethics of certain hafter procedure because, well, fortunately,

618
01:09:10,950 --> 01:09:17,160
we are still living in a society where various, as David said, freedom of speech, academic freedom.

619
01:09:17,160 --> 01:09:20,940
Now, it is true that we are going in the wrong direction with respect.

620
01:09:20,940 --> 01:09:30,210
So but there is still enough room for debating about, for example, whether abortion should or should not be part of the medical profession.

621
01:09:30,210 --> 01:09:33,930
I think we should have this kind of discussion which that discussion about what we say about euthanasia.

622
01:09:33,930 --> 01:09:39,330
Well, anything is controversial, and that's the place where this kind of disagreement should come up.

623
01:09:39,330 --> 01:09:48,340
I think I'm open to arguing with people who think abortion should not be part of the health care profession, which I need to wait.

624
01:09:48,340 --> 01:09:54,900
And I think we should have the debate at that level. And that is you can have as much as I deem it as you want to declare it.

625
01:09:54,900 --> 01:10:01,740
The point is that once we decide, rightly or wrongly, that something is a legitimate part of the profession,

626
01:10:01,740 --> 01:10:09,210
then when it comes to dealing with patients who need a certain service, that's not the place to bring up ethical issues.

627
01:10:09,210 --> 01:10:16,020
You can you can campaign against abortion. You can. You can have a debate about changing the medical codes, about abortion.

628
01:10:16,020 --> 01:10:23,340
And that's fine. But the point is that if we bring the disagreement down to the level of the bedside.

629
01:10:23,340 --> 01:10:34,110
So when we are actually in front of a patient or when or when we need to fulfil some responsibility of the healthcare system that we work for,

630
01:10:34,110 --> 01:10:39,100
then I think necessary is not the place for disagreement. So.

631
01:10:39,100 --> 01:10:40,020
I'm happy to have.

632
01:10:40,020 --> 01:10:49,360
I'm happy to compromise, but not at the level of Krasker that even had to compromise on the level of setting up guidelines for the profession.

633
01:10:49,360 --> 01:10:58,650
Because healthcare professionals are monopoly provider or whatever service we think healthcare professionals should provide is not a fight.

634
01:10:58,650 --> 01:11:03,460
If a woman cannot have abortion from the healthcare providers, they can go somewhere else.

635
01:11:03,460 --> 01:11:07,160
So they have a monopoly and therefore it responsible to point that, certainly.

636
01:11:07,160 --> 01:11:11,770
So I think we ought to be clear about where we are going to have this disagreement at which level?

637
01:11:11,770 --> 01:11:18,070
Well, I think the last point is very interesting because there is the question of whether.

638
01:11:18,070 --> 01:11:30,760
Whether there is a problem here is the notion of a monopoly. Because if you had if you had areas of healthcare, forms of delivery of healthcare,

639
01:11:30,760 --> 01:11:38,290
which were informed by different subcultures and communities, then you could have,

640
01:11:38,290 --> 01:11:41,770
as you do in the United States, but not in this country,

641
01:11:41,770 --> 01:11:47,240
then you might have hospitals where you didn't have abortion and hospitals where you did have abortion.

642
01:11:47,240 --> 01:11:58,730
For example. And and you have you can have an ethos and a culture within.

643
01:11:58,730 --> 01:12:05,570
But that's only possible if you don't have a single monopoly. There is a there is one provider, which is the state.

644
01:12:05,570 --> 01:12:12,200
And everybody who works for the state does the same thing. And everybody who signs up for it has to do it in the same way.

645
01:12:12,200 --> 01:12:13,970
I think that might be a bit problematic.

646
01:12:13,970 --> 01:12:21,770
I mean, I'd say with abortion, even in this country, most abortion is paid for by the NHS, but not delivered through the NHS.

647
01:12:21,770 --> 01:12:27,980
So you do you don't you actually don't have intent to provide who's doing the providing you have.

648
01:12:27,980 --> 01:12:33,610
So it's like a private provision. And then you have people from outside and paid for by the state.

649
01:12:33,610 --> 01:12:40,590
So you do actually have a variety and a number iji could be cultivated to be different.

650
01:12:40,590 --> 01:12:50,320
And that would allow people to practise within. And also to seek out ways of delivering service, which were more in context with it,

651
01:12:50,320 --> 01:12:57,320
in the context of a of an understanding of health care that they had.

652
01:12:57,320 --> 01:13:08,300
We've had a few comments coming in saying that individuals haven't necessarily found that helpful to have you swap perspectives.

653
01:13:08,300 --> 01:13:16,780
Presumably there are people here who know your views and in general, we don't think be able to say, where do you find the experience helpful?

654
01:13:16,780 --> 01:13:26,420
Go settles in articulating your arguments. So it's so dear to me that was swapping back wasn't helpful or swapping until now wasn't helpful.

655
01:13:26,420 --> 01:13:34,760
I think something until now wasn't OK. Well, well, perhaps if we now we have started to swap back, if we saw.

656
01:13:34,760 --> 01:13:39,290
If we comment on that, then then there might be more illuminating.

657
01:13:39,290 --> 01:13:45,560
I mean, I think that fun for me, it for me, it has been helpful.

658
01:13:45,560 --> 01:13:51,730
And I think that perhaps in terms of the timing of where we are, that's that's that's probably good for me.

659
01:13:51,730 --> 01:13:58,010
It's been helpful to think in terms of if I am in favour of conscientious objection,

660
01:13:58,010 --> 01:14:06,320
which I am, I need to think of examples where the person who is objecting is wrong.

661
01:14:06,320 --> 01:14:12,140
And so I'm defending a right of somebody who is who is in error. I observe kind of liberty.

662
01:14:12,140 --> 01:14:15,740
What tends to happen is people in favour of conscientious objection.

663
01:14:15,740 --> 01:14:21,530
Take examples where they agree with the objector and people who are against conscientious objection.

664
01:14:21,530 --> 01:14:25,010
Take examples where they they they disagree with the objector.

665
01:14:25,010 --> 01:14:29,000
And that's not helpful because of conscientious objection is essentially a procedural thing.

666
01:14:29,000 --> 01:14:33,980
And so it's good to test it with examples where you don't agree.

667
01:14:33,980 --> 01:14:41,480
And so I think that I've found useful and I do accept and I think it is useful for people who are

668
01:14:41,480 --> 01:14:48,860
in favour of conscientious objection to think what are the limits of conscientious objection.

669
01:14:48,860 --> 01:14:54,170
And if you're going to defend it, how can you defend it if you don't defend it as an absolute.

670
01:14:54,170 --> 01:15:01,500
And how can you defend it if you don't defend it on the basis of of of of relativism,

671
01:15:01,500 --> 01:15:13,160
all those still ways to defend conscientious objection as a as a a principled compromise for certain purposes.

672
01:15:13,160 --> 01:15:18,950
And that's that's what I got. I mean, I think.

673
01:15:18,950 --> 01:15:26,570
I'm sure sometimes Alberto was frustrated with my presentation of all of the views against,

674
01:15:26,570 --> 01:15:33,680
I was sometimes frustrated with his presentation of oh oh what somebody would say.

675
01:15:33,680 --> 01:15:36,830
And though I sometimes agree with him, sometimes I disagreed with him.

676
01:15:36,830 --> 01:15:41,810
And in particular on this objectivity thing, I, I, I'm a strong objectivists.

677
01:15:41,810 --> 01:15:49,110
I think that some people if we disagree about an issue, then either.

678
01:15:49,110 --> 01:15:57,770
Either I'm right and you're wrong or you're right and I'm wrong. We're both wrong. Or or at the babies least are wrong about each other.

679
01:15:57,770 --> 01:16:03,440
We've misunderstood each other. So I don't think that's necessary.

680
01:16:03,440 --> 01:16:07,540
I'm glad to have found useful in trying to argue for the opposite case.

681
01:16:07,540 --> 01:16:11,620
But oh, I'll leave. Yeah.

682
01:16:11,620 --> 01:16:19,170
I'm on the same page with that. About that. So I mean, so the main thing is that needs to before this debate about the need for most debates.

683
01:16:19,170 --> 01:16:24,120
But I think as far as I know. So. The most common.

684
01:16:24,120 --> 01:16:29,160
Theme they see people doing is like arguing against the strawman.

685
01:16:29,160 --> 01:16:34,240
So that's something that. Well, law, although we all know that we shouldn't do that.

686
01:16:34,240 --> 01:16:41,710
But it is surprisingly difficult to avoid building up the strawman and arguing against it when you argue against a certain view.

687
01:16:41,710 --> 01:16:47,590
And I mean, when I'm on it, I'm also guilty of doing that, although I know that's not really good academic practise,

688
01:16:47,590 --> 01:16:56,460
but I'm surprise sometimes to see how much most traumatic the kind of practise it is widespread in academic debate.

689
01:16:56,460 --> 01:17:02,780
So the point of doing this thing is trying to. Like, avoid this strategy.

690
01:17:02,780 --> 01:17:09,810
So I generally wanted to convince and I didn't, I just want to make the strongest case against me,

691
01:17:09,810 --> 01:17:15,750
if you will, because that's really a way of avoiding building a strawman.

692
01:17:15,750 --> 01:17:25,920
And it's interesting that David said that it wasn't often always happy with the way I reported view, and it was the same for me.

693
01:17:25,920 --> 01:17:34,280
Sometimes I think he's sort of misconstrue my my actual position and not not not intentionally.

694
01:17:34,280 --> 01:17:37,130
So I didn't do it intentionally. And I'm sure he didn't do it intentionally.

695
01:17:37,130 --> 01:17:42,650
It's just that we have in our mind a clear idea of the things we got against do.

696
01:17:42,650 --> 01:17:54,900
And the way we built up this idea is you such that we know you make it as easy as possible for us to take or to dismiss these opposite views.

697
01:17:54,900 --> 01:17:56,600
And I think that this exercise is very useful.

698
01:17:56,600 --> 01:18:03,220
I would be happy to do it with regard to other topics, say abortion, abortion itself from is objectionable because that's there to see.

699
01:18:03,220 --> 01:18:07,280
Really an interesting thing for them. There are good arguments against abortion.

700
01:18:07,280 --> 01:18:13,100
I think there are. I don't think they're good enough, but I think they're good as it's worth exploring.

701
01:18:13,100 --> 01:18:19,550
And I'd be interested to the same theme because we need to avoid engaging in this kind of strawman strategy with each other.

702
01:18:19,550 --> 01:18:27,860
I think it might have been helpful had we said at the beginning, and this is retrospect or perhaps get people to think about it,

703
01:18:27,860 --> 01:18:35,510
to have invited people when they asked questions also to do so from the opposite perspective.

704
01:18:35,510 --> 01:18:37,900
That's what we had tried to get people to think about.

705
01:18:37,900 --> 01:18:44,590
So even if they didn't, even if you had questions on you, the questions were very much in terms of of a view you disagree with.

706
01:18:44,590 --> 01:18:51,560
And what's wrong with that view? I think it's useful to think in terms of what you heard and say, well,

707
01:18:51,560 --> 01:18:55,360
if I held the opposite view, if I held the opposite view, what kind of questions?

708
01:18:55,360 --> 01:19:00,340
What I want to ask to push the speaker. What what kind of questions would I.

709
01:19:00,340 --> 01:19:08,440
Well, from the opposite perspective, but I'd like to push on. That's what would have been good to do.

710
01:19:08,440 --> 01:19:16,310
Yeah. I think that the format is challenged as a little bit because obviously we had wanted to do this face to

711
01:19:16,310 --> 01:19:22,550
face and we had the idea of you having the hat so people could keep track of the arguments a bit more.

712
01:19:22,550 --> 01:19:33,110
So perhaps if we d do this again, perhaps in person, we might think about how we can get that audience swapping going on as well.

713
01:19:33,110 --> 01:19:34,450
Just following on from that,

714
01:19:34,450 --> 01:19:44,570
Ronan is commenting that some they use a technique of arguing against one's own position as part of their annual course of medical ethics.

715
01:19:44,570 --> 01:19:49,970
And he would like to know whether either if you've learnt anything from this exercise, I know you face it.

716
01:19:49,970 --> 01:19:56,870
It's been challenging and good to to construct your own arguments against dodgems positions.

717
01:19:56,870 --> 01:20:05,270
Have you actually learnt anything about the alternative? Standpoint, does it work?

718
01:20:05,270 --> 01:20:10,250
So as far as I'm concerned, yes. So the main thing is that.

719
01:20:10,250 --> 01:20:20,330
I think what I learnt is that. Probably the main point of disagreement in this debate, in this debate is about.

720
01:20:20,330 --> 01:20:30,080
So the nature of health care about what is what is not part of health care, because it seems to me that all the problems turn on to that issue.

721
01:20:30,080 --> 01:20:38,700
Because. If if we agree that. See, abortion is part of health care then.

722
01:20:38,700 --> 01:20:41,730
That's a strong reason for against that. I guess conscientious objection.

723
01:20:41,730 --> 01:20:49,320
But if we agree that abortion is not part of health care, maybe the case for quotients objection is weaker, but it probably is.

724
01:20:49,320 --> 01:20:55,530
What criteria do we. Should we adopt to decide whether something is or is not the of care?

725
01:20:55,530 --> 01:21:03,750
So if this is something I learnt says like trying to build up the argument against my position, I think.

726
01:21:03,750 --> 01:21:10,120
It showed me that this may be the most difficult point to address if they want to make the strongest possible against Christians.

727
01:21:10,120 --> 01:21:22,450
We I need to make an argument about why abortion is part of health, should be part of healthcare.

728
01:21:22,450 --> 01:21:30,400
I think I've. I've come to think of conscientious objection as a.

729
01:21:30,400 --> 01:21:42,790
As an institution or as as a practise, as something which needs to be clarified or or interrogated and.

730
01:21:42,790 --> 01:21:48,970
And I think it's a classic case of people using it as a proxy for other things.

731
01:21:48,970 --> 01:21:57,850
So people use it as a proxy for the. So if you're against abortion, then you're in favour of conscientious objection to abortion.

732
01:21:57,850 --> 01:22:02,980
And it's just a proxy for being against abortion. So it's not about conscience objection itself.

733
01:22:02,980 --> 01:22:14,530
It's a proxy for another kind of argument. And and I've I think I've come more to think and to think.

734
01:22:14,530 --> 01:22:28,780
I need to think more about what is the role for conscientious objection alongside other ways of dealing with disagreement.

735
01:22:28,780 --> 01:22:36,710
Reasonably. And and when it might not actually be.

736
01:22:36,710 --> 01:22:49,990
When it when it might not actually be a very useful category. And I'm I think.

737
01:22:49,990 --> 01:22:57,910
Some of this some of this relates to the difference between the question, should you follow your conscience and.

738
01:22:57,910 --> 01:23:06,490
Should you expect anybody's help when you follow your conscience? First, I gave above no difficulty with the second.

739
01:23:06,490 --> 01:23:11,500
I can see if people disagree with you about. About the results, then.

740
01:23:11,500 --> 01:23:19,100
Then you sometimes should do the the difficult thing. But you shouldn't necessarily expect people to try to agree with you.

741
01:23:19,100 --> 01:23:32,200
And and I've become more suspicious of purely procedural ways of dealing with disagreement without looking at what we're disagreeing about.

742
01:23:32,200 --> 01:23:35,960
He Johan, is just continuing that thought.

743
01:23:35,960 --> 01:23:41,000
He says thank you for this wonderful discussion on the topic of different levels of compromise.

744
01:23:41,000 --> 01:23:46,700
What do you think of a solution where society grants health care workers the freedom to requestor viral,

745
01:23:46,700 --> 01:23:52,370
but without a guarantee that their crest will be granted, assuming that some requests are granted and some are not?

746
01:23:52,370 --> 01:24:05,190
Is this truly a compromise or is the protection of conscience so weak that it can no longer be called a right to conscientious objection?

747
01:24:05,190 --> 01:24:15,030
The right to referral is a really knotty one. And I think it is because without some kind of rights referral, I'm not sure.

748
01:24:15,030 --> 01:24:19,100
Oh, right. Not to refer. Then there's a real problem. Conscience objection.

749
01:24:19,100 --> 01:24:31,400
But but I'm not sure how you. Deliver an equal service, but not in that in terms of what people are, what people wish, wish to be provided.

750
01:24:31,400 --> 01:24:36,890
I think it's reasonable to be provided how you do that at the same time as as not having referral.

751
01:24:36,890 --> 01:24:42,710
But I would also the person thinks of examples where they wouldn't want to refer things,

752
01:24:42,710 --> 01:24:51,440
have examples of things they objected, say, say, for example, therapy.

753
01:24:51,440 --> 01:25:03,740
Therapy to change your sexual orientation. OK. So therapy is a psychotherapy aimed at changing unwanted same sex attraction.

754
01:25:03,740 --> 01:25:08,440
So you have somebody who says, well, this is just about freedom. You have this out there.

755
01:25:08,440 --> 01:25:17,030
It's it's a free market. There are these people. I go to a psychotherapist and I say, if you don't give this to me,

756
01:25:17,030 --> 01:25:23,210
can you point me in the direction of someone who will give psychotherapy for same sex attraction?

757
01:25:23,210 --> 01:25:34,400
And if you think that this this kind of therapy is likely to be harmful, then for that reason you won't want to provide it.

758
01:25:34,400 --> 01:25:42,620
You won't want to refer to it, even if it's legal. You might want also to be campaigning in the meantime for it not to be legal.

759
01:25:42,620 --> 01:25:57,230
But while it is legal, you might not want to provide it, but it is a it's a real practical difficulty just to know how to protect your rights,

760
01:25:57,230 --> 01:26:10,720
not to refer at the same time as having other people provide where we as a society have thought those things ought to be allowed to be provided.

761
01:26:10,720 --> 01:26:15,580
I don't think I do that because that's a bit of a problem of consistency.

762
01:26:15,580 --> 01:26:21,460
If you feel if you allow conscientious objection to certain practises, then you need to apply the same criteria to referral.

763
01:26:21,460 --> 01:26:25,010
Because to some people. So if you're soon a conscious matters that much.

764
01:26:25,010 --> 01:26:29,260
So some people are referring literally as bad as doing the actual thing.

765
01:26:29,260 --> 01:26:35,980
So, yeah. So if you play one criteria for conscientious objection to performing things, you need to practise.

766
01:26:35,980 --> 01:26:41,660
Same for Koshetz, which I can refer. I'm not. To me, these are inactive. To me, this means that we should have local church object in the first place.

767
01:26:41,660 --> 01:26:48,580
I suppose we're going to wait. So if I can give a count.

768
01:26:48,580 --> 01:26:53,140
I agree with that. But I give a counter and that's when you have professional disagreement.

769
01:26:53,140 --> 01:26:56,230
So if the disagreement is not about conscience,

770
01:26:56,230 --> 01:27:08,050
but it's about I don't think I don't think that that this kind of procedure is useful for for this for this disease.

771
01:27:08,050 --> 01:27:12,910
Does it does a professional disagreement about that? There are some people who think this is the next thing.

772
01:27:12,910 --> 01:27:16,420
I read the evidence. I don't think it's the next thing.

773
01:27:16,420 --> 01:27:23,440
What happens is you can say, I don't want I will not refer you for this because I don't think it will be good for you.

774
01:27:23,440 --> 01:27:32,670
But you have the right to seek a second opinion. But I'm not going to tell you who out that I disagree with because I disagree with them.

775
01:27:32,670 --> 01:27:38,200
So I don't have a duty to find someone who has some crackpot idea that I disagree with.

776
01:27:38,200 --> 01:27:43,150
Well, I have a duty to do is say this is what I think.

777
01:27:43,150 --> 01:27:50,920
You have a right to another opinion if you disagree with me. But I don't have the right to to.

778
01:27:50,920 --> 01:27:56,050
I don't have a duty to refer to someone who I know has a different view.

779
01:27:56,050 --> 01:27:59,980
I could point you in the direction of how you find a second opinion.

780
01:27:59,980 --> 01:28:03,130
But. But not specifically. Thank you.

781
01:28:03,130 --> 01:28:10,030
I think I have a duty to point. We're very, very close to the end of this this meeting.

782
01:28:10,030 --> 01:28:15,700
Say, I simply thank you very much to everyone who's joined us and to you, David.

783
01:28:15,700 --> 01:28:22,780
And our blessings are so incredible. So it's an amazing way of handling each other's others perspectives.

784
01:28:22,780 --> 01:28:27,130
I'm conscious that we haven't managed to get through all the questions. I do apologise for that.

785
01:28:27,130 --> 01:28:33,260
But it sounds like we've got quite a list of material to have another debate again in the future.

786
01:28:33,260 --> 01:28:37,803
Say we we'll keep everyone posted on that.