Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHaaland Barlaup, Astrid
dc.contributor.authorLandsverk, Åse Marie
dc.contributor.authorMyskja, Bjørn Kåre
dc.contributor.authorSupphellen, Magne
dc.contributor.authorMagelssen, Morten
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-23T11:47:42Z
dc.date.available2020-01-23T11:47:42Z
dc.date.created2019-05-09T14:42:54Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationClinical Ethics. 2019, 14 (3), 115-121.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn1477-7509
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2637624
dc.description.abstractBackground The public’s attitudes to conscientious objection (CO) are likely to influence political decisions about CO and trust towards healthcare systems and providers. Few studies examine the public’s attitudes in an in-depth way. Methods Six hypotheses about public attitudes to CO were devised and a questionnaire designed in order to test them. A total of 1617 Norwegian citizens completed the online questionnaire. Results Support for toleration of CO was strongest in the case of ritual circumcision of infant boys, lower for assisted dying and abortion. Attitudes to the procedure itself negatively predicted attitudes to CO for the procedure. Respondents were more accepting of CO to performing abortion than of CO to referrals for abortion. There was stronger support for CO as an outcome of local pragmatic arrangements than for CO as a statutory right. Conclusions Instead of viewing CO as a ‘moral safety valve’ or minority right which is due also to those with whom we disagree strongly, a portion of the public approaches the issue from the angle of what moral attitudes they deem acceptable to hold. The gap between this approach on the one hand and human rights principles on the other is likely to give rise to tensions in political processes whenever policies for CO are negotiated.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsnb_NO
dc.titleAcceptable attitudes and the limits of tolerance: Understanding public attitudes to conscientious objection in healthcarenb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber115-121nb_NO
dc.source.volume14nb_NO
dc.source.journalClinical Ethicsnb_NO
dc.source.issue3nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1477750919851066
dc.identifier.cristin1696714
dc.description.localcode© 2019. This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1477750919851066nb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,62,70,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for filosofi og religionsvitenskap
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record