Conscientious Objection: Understanding the Right of Conscience in Health and Healthcare Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In situations of moral gravitas, healthcare professionals are largely protected in the Western world to invoke their right to conscientiously object to providing care that conflicts with their personal, moral, and religious beliefs. However, making a conscientious objection needs to be predicated by an understanding of conscience, and knowledge of conscience is largely absent in definition as well as discourse surrounding conscientious objection in healthcare practice. Moreover, current definitions of health do not place emphasis on the ethical well-being of patients as well as care providers. Exploring health as an ethical condition of wellness in the light of conscientious healthcare provision will be addressed in my paper. I will also discuss how a distance from conscience in conscientious objection could compromise a healthcare professional's right to conscientious objection, if the fundamental, human right to conscience is not protected in the first place, supported by a focus on the importance of health as a state of ethical well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".