In the United States, conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in non-combatant military roles during World War I. Some 2,000 absolute conscientious objectors refused to cooperate with the military in any way. [7]: 11 These men were imprisoned in military installations such as Fort Lewis (Washington), Alcatraz Island (California) and Fort Leavenworth (Kansas). Some were subjected to treatment such as scarce rations, solitary confinement and physical abuse so severe that it resulted in the death of two Hutterite conscripts. [11]: 545 A conscientious objector may always be willing to use force to defend himself or others, and may even support a state`s right to go to war as long as the individual refuses to personally participate in such an armed conflict between states or groups. [6]: 5 Taken in isolation, this last principle could lead to a demand for housing on a number of controversial issues. What we mean is simply that this last argument, combined with the previous two, reinforces the special status of judicial cases, which are considered by some to be illegitimate and deliberate murders of human beings. The conflictual nature shows that these issues have a special significance compared to other matters of conscience and should be treated differently. Liberal democracy is the government of free and equal citizens. In such a state, it is accepted that people should be free to live according to their own conception of the good, as long as it does not interfere with the right of other citizens to a similar freedom.

Every citizen has their own ideas about the meaning of life and what is valuable. John Rawls calls these ideas “complete teachings.” Rawls asserts that it is a “fact that a plurality of contradictory, reasonable, complete, religious, philosophical and moral doctrines is the normal result of the culture of free institutions [democracy]” [11]. Conflicts between different “global views” have no character that can be resolved by evidence. Rather, they are views on the evidence we have on issues of moral importance. This political recognition of fundamental moral ignorance is the basis of tolerance in liberal democracies. How should pluralism be dealt with? Rawls goes on to “propose that, in public reason, the global doctrines of truth or law be replaced by an idea of political rationality addressed to citizens as citizens” [11]. By adhering to an idea of political rationality, we can determine the moral and political values of a society of free and equal citizens who do not necessarily share fundamental notions of goodness. Some have criticized Rawls` concept of rationality as vague, while others defend it [12]. We believe that the criteria below are sufficient to operationalize the concept in the context of conscientious objection.

The 1W service has been divided into several categories. The compensation department involved working in institutions such as hospitals for fairly good salaries. Voluntary service was unpaid work performed in similar institutions, primarily in North America. Pax Service was an unpaid alternative with overseas assignments. The 1-W mission support service was like the earnings service, but salaries were used to support mission, auxiliary or service projects chosen by conscripts. Unpaid services have been promoted by ecclesiastical institutions as sacrifices in order to enhance the peace testimony of conscientious objectors. [13]: 260-269 Abortion is a different case, because it is clearly not a decision of one whose life is over. The question is whether it is reasonable to consider this to be a murder of a person. The general agreement that it is wrong to kill people, combined with reasonable disagreement about the extent of human personality, makes moral opposition to the killing of fetuses, embryos, and zygotes a reasonable position.

As long as we agree that people should have the legal right to be exempted from killing people, we should have the right to be exempt from abortion when we consider the fetus as a person. However, there is another, more important reason to tolerate conscientious objections in the workplace. Individuals have the right to choose their place of work, as stipulated in article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and any restriction of this right must be based on valid reasons. The same applies to the principles of tolerance and freedom of conscience, which are the moral foundations of liberal democracy. The default position is that you do not have to choose between your right to free choice of profession and your core moral convictions. This does not mean that workers can keep their jobs if they refuse to perform essential tasks, but there should be good reasons to force people to make a choice between these fundamental rights [8]. This means that, in the context of minority rights, we no longer think of a professional conscience specific to health professionals, but we allow everyone, regardless of profession, to come into conflict between professional duties and conscience, and that this should generally be avoided by exceptions. RF card. Reasons, relevance and determination of conscientious objector status in medicine. J Med Ethics.

2017;43:222–5. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also stated that while a medical professional can raise contentious objections, “but should also refer the patient without objection to another physician who can provide what the patient is looking for. This is done so as not to create barriers to accessing services. [12] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Access to Information on Reproductive Health from a Human Rights Perspective, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. 61 (2011), para. 94. For serving U.S. military personnel, conscientious objection requests are subject to “investigation by a senior officer who is not part of the applicant`s chain of command” and “questioning of the applicant by a military chaplain and a psychiatrist or medical officer.” The official conducts an informal interview to verify the sincerity of the applicant`s convictions. Who makes the decision varies depending on the military branch.

[24] For those who did not want to finance the war for reasons of conscience, alternatives to war bonds and war savings stamps were provided. The National Service Board for Religious Objectors offered civil obligations, and the Mennonite Central Committee offered stamps for civilian public services and relief stamps for war victims. Traditionally, conscientious objectors in the United States were accepted only by devout members of pacifist religions. Objections based on moral, ethical or political reasons were rejected. As noted in Gillette v. United States of 1971, opponents could not be selective in their objection. The Court ruled that resistance to “unjust” wars was not enough; A person must resist all wars to claim conscientious objection.