Conscientious objection in the legal context

Abstract

Act Nº 18.987 and Decree 375/012 brought up a debate involving women's right to voluntary interruption of pregnancy and the right of physicians to refrain from performing it, due to moral consciousness issues. From a secular and bioethical perspective, this article aims to determine arguments seeking for minimal consensus that will respect the moral values and principles of all actors.
Conscientious objection is the refusal to perform certain legal, enforceable actions in order to avoid a serious lesion in the person´s own conscience. It evidences respect to freedom of ideas and religion by a state under the rule of law. It is an individual act that does not aim to change the law, and neither does it seek for others to revise their decision. It is different from civil disobedience since it consists of a group of people who state they do not want to observe a legal provision, it aims to abolish it and to exert a group pressure on the government.
From the point of view of the principlism bioethics: a) there is respect for women's autonomy who decide to interrupt their pregnancy according to the legal provisions in force; b) access of women to voluntary interruption of pregnancy under the health team control is connected to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principles; c) the application of the law in the entire National Integrated Health System guarantees women's universal access to these services, according to the justice principle.