Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26760
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcDougall, Rosalind J-
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Ben P-
dc.contributor.authorKo, Danielle-
dc.contributor.authorKeogh, Louise-
dc.contributor.authorWillmott, Lindy-
dc.date2021-06-14-
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-16T03:15:50Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-16T03:15:50Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Ethics 2022-08; 48(8): 517-521en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26760-
dc.description.abstractIn jurisdictions where voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is legal, eligibility assessments, prescription and administration of a VAD substance are commonly performed by senior doctors. Junior doctors' involvement is limited to a range of more peripheral aspects of patient care relating to VAD. In the Australian state of Victoria, where VAD has been legal since June 2019, all health professionals have a right under the legislation to conscientiously object to involvement in the VAD process, including provision of information about VAD. While this protection appears categorical and straightforward, conscientious objection to VAD-related care is ethically complex for junior doctors for reasons that are specific to this group of clinicians. For junior doctors wishing to exercise a conscientious objection to VAD, their dependence on their senior colleagues for career progression creates unique risks and burdens. In a context where senior colleagues are supportive of VAD, the junior doctor's subordinate position in the medical hierarchy exposes them to potential significant harms: compromising their moral integrity by participating, or compromising their career progression by objecting. In jurisdictions intending to provide all health professionals with meaningful conscientious objection protection in relation to VAD, strong specific support for junior doctors is needed through local institutional policies and culture.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectconscientious objectionen
dc.subjecteuthanasiaen
dc.subjectvoluntary assisted dyingen
dc.titleJunior doctors and conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying: ethical complexity in practice.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Medical Ethicsen
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationPalliative Careen
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationQuality and Patient Safetyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/medethics-2020-107125en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-3809-2575en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3365-939Xen
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2963-6451en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-9750-287Xen
dc.identifier.pubmedid34127526-
local.name.researcherKo, Danielle
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptPalliative Care-
crisitem.author.deptClinical Ethics-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

48
checked on Nov 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.