The Supreme Court’s recent interventions on abortion, opioids, gender-affirming care, and conversion therapy have me thinking there must be a better way to think and talk about our deepest disagreements over the practice of medicine. My colleague Dov Fox offers just that in his latest book with Harvard University Press, The Conscience of Care: Navigating Health in the Culture Wars.
It shows how only in America can medical professionals appeal to conscience as a one-sided trump card. I’m used to hearing about conscientious refusers, whose heartfelt convictions lead them to deny treatments that they deem sinful or wrong. Less familiar are clinicians whose moral commitment to evidence-based care compels them to do what their institution or state forbids—on pain of losing their job, their license, or their freedom. Dov details our law’s indifference to such conscientious providers. In stark contrast, refusers enjoy shocking levels of immunity from everything from employment violations and patient discrimination to civil malpractice and criminal endangerment. It doesn’t matter if they’re the last physician or even hospital in town. Refusers don’t even have to tell patients about their medical options.
The book argues that this lopsided law of medical conscience is unjust and indefensible. It charts a principled new path of conditions, consequences, and compromises to break through the conflicts that divide us most. I’m not the only one who thinks so: here are some blurbs: “Elegantly written and meticulously reasoned, this book … presents a bold, urgent vision for resolving the[] pressing controversies of our time.” —Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford; “A cutting-edge … model [of] respect across political disagreement.” —Reva Siegel, Yale Law School; “[G]roundbreaking…. Mandatory reading for anyone concerned about medical ethics and the evolving roles of government in healthcare.” —Anita L. Allen, UPenn Law School ; “Dov Fox’s pioneering work … could not be more timely.” —I. Glenn Cohen, Harvard Law School
