Review of Domestic and Foreign Legal Status and Issues of Conscientious Objection to Abortion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In accordance with Article 15 of the 「Medical Service Act」, medical personnel or a founder of a medical institution may not, upon receiving a request for medical treatment or assistance in childbirth, refuse to render his/her service without ‘any justifiable ground’in Korea. However, conscientious objection to abortion became a hot topic, as gynecologists who were unable to perform abortion in accordance with their religious and conscientious beliefs asked to recognize their right to veto after the Constitutional Court ruling on the punishment for abortion. It is forbidden to arbitrarily deny a medical provider a medical act. but conscientious and religious freedom of all people should be guaranteed. So it is also necessary to discuss the appropriateness of the range of conscientious objection for specific medical practices. As a based from the data, this paper summarizes the current status of the United States, Ireland, Italy, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada, which guarantee the conscientious objection of medical providers to abortion in the form of medical law, special law and guidelines. And through this work, we have drawn up issues that require social consensus for domestic legalization. We hope that the discussion on conscientious objection to the realization of the rights of both the patient and the health care provider will be initiated through social consensus on these issues.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".