Conscientious objection gone awry - Restoring selfless professionalism in medicine

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 360, Issue 15, 2009, Pages 1484-1485

  Cantor, Julie D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSCIENCE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; LAW; LAW SUIT; MEDICAL PROFESSION; PATIENT RIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONALISM; SHORT SURVEY; ARTICLE; CIVIL RIGHTS; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; INDUCED ABORTION; LEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT ABANDONMENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RELIGION; UNITED STATES;

ABORTION, INDUCED; CIVIL RIGHTS; CONSCIENCE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; REFUSAL TO TREAT; RELIGION AND MEDICINE; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;

EID: 64349121978     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp0902019     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. 42 U.S.C.A. § 300a-7(d).
2. Shelton v. Univ. of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000).
3. Pear R. Protests over a rule to protect health providers. New York Times. November 17, 2008:A14.
4. Press release of the State of Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Hartford, February 27, 2009. (Accessed March 20, 2009, at http://www.ct.gov/ag/ cwp/view.asp?A=3673&Q=434882.)
5. Liptak A. On moral grounds, some judges are opting out of abortion cases. New York Times. September 4, 2005.