Unfortunately for Kate, a private faith-based healthcare institution in the United States generally has a legal right to refuse access to abortion based on the principle of conscientious objection (Levin, 2016; Fiala & Arthur, 2017). Conscientious objection refers to the health care provider (or in this case, the insurance provider’s) ability to refuse to take action based on religious principles or beliefs. In this case, and in all similar cases, the legal right to refuse treatment should be separated from Kate’s rights as a patient.
Ultimately, Kate’s rights to ethical treatment, medical justice, and autonomy far outweigh the hospital’s right to conscientious objection. The only compromise that can possibly be reached in this case would be for the institution to refer Kate to a nearby institution that could perform the procedure. If, however, no such institution existed then Kate must be able to access the abortion services through her primary care facility. As Fiala & Arthur (2017) point out, conscientious objection in health care “should not be considered a right, but an unethical refusal to treat,” (p. 254). A doctor has professional obligations to the patient that supersede the doctor’s personal beliefs. Put another way, “introducing religion into medicine undermines...
254). There is no medical reason to refuse the patient’s abortion.
Refusing the right to conscientious objection in no way detracts from the tremendous benefits in forging relationships between faith-based health care plans and institutions and their communities. As Levin (2016) points out, spirituality and religion play important roles in holistic care. If an institution wishes to uphold the tenets of the faith that provides financial support for its operations, then that ideal must be tempered with the overarching medical ethic that should be—but is not yet—entrenched in law. Health care is a universal human right, not a commodity. Only a commodity-driven or market-driven view of health care could conceive of conscientious objection as a more inalienable right than a patient’s right to receive treatment. If Kate lived in an area with plentiful healthcare options and a healthcare plan that covers abortion, then there would be less of an ethical dilemma. As Rosell (n.d.) presents the facts, though, Kate’s insurance provider is actually presided over and managed by a faith-based organization. This represents a potential conflict of interest. No health care insurance should categorically deny a patient access to…
