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