Conscientious Objection to Aggressive Interventions for Patients in a Vegetative State

Some physicians refuse to perform life-sustaining interventions, such as tracheostomy, on patients who are very likely to remain permanently unconscious. To explain their refusal, these clinicians often invoke the language of futility, but this can be inaccurate and can mask problematic forms of clinical power. This paper explores whether such refusals should instead be framed as conscientious objections. We contend that the refusal to provide interventions for patients very likely to remain permanently unconscious meets widely recognized ethical standards for the exercise of conscience. We conclude that conscientious objection to tracheostomy and other life-sustaining interventions on such patients can be ethical because it does not necessarily constitute a form of invidious discrimination. Furthermore, when a physician frames their refusal as conscientious objection, it makes transparent the value-laden nature of their objection and can better facilitate patient access to the requested treatment.

Automated summary

This paper explores the ethics of physicians refusing to provide life-sustaining interventions for patients who are likely to remain permanently unconscious. It argues that such refusals can be framed as conscientious objections and meet ethical standards. By framing their refusal as conscientious objection, physicians can make their objection's value-laden nature transparent and improve patient access to requested treatments.