Moral Asymmetry and Conscientious Objections: Revisiting Negative and Positive Rights in Healthcare

Abstract: This talk critically examines the moral asymmetry between negative and positive conscientious objections in healthcare by exploring their ties to the distinction between negative and positive rights and duties. Traditionally, negative duties—such as refraining from harm—are viewed as more stringent than positive duties, like providing aid. Negative conscientious objections, which protect healthcare professionals (HCPs) from violating their own moral beliefs by refusing to provide certain services, are often given precedence over positive conscientious objections, where HCPs seek to provide care aligned with their conscience, even if legally or institutionally restricted.
This analysis challenges the assumed priority of negative duties and highlights that both negative and positive rights inherently require a combination of duties. Drawing on the works of Henry Shue, James Rachels, and others, this presentation demonstrates that the moral weight of duties is context-dependent. Cases where violations of positive duties are more egregious than violations of negative duties will be explored, alongside the implications for HCPs’ rights and patients’ rights.
Ultimately, this presentation argues for a more consistent and equitable approach to conscientious objections in healthcare. Positive conscientious appeals, often centered on patient well-being, deserve moral consideration equal to, if not greater than, negative appeals. In a pluralistic society, both types of conscientious objections should be accommodated to ensure respect for diverse moral commitments and the promotion of patient-centered care.

Keywords: Conscientious Objections, Negative Rights, Positive rights