Abstract
Conscientious objection, as a legal exception based on freedom of conscience, thought and belief, is most commonly found in national legal systems in the fields of medicine and pharmacy. This may include issues such as abortion, euthanasia, artificial insemination, or the manufacture and provision of contraceptives and abortifacients. It can also be found in situations where a state has compulsory basic military service, or in social and government workers dealing with gay unions or allowing adoption by gay couples.
Conscientious objection, together with the institution of civil disobedience, are areas that are associated with much ambiguity and a search for legal certainty on the part of both the addressees and the public authorities.
As far as the institution of compulsory military service is concerned, freedom of conscience, which is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Article 15, paragraph 3. The Constitutional Court addressed this issue in its ruling Pl ÚS 18/98, when it guaranteed the right to refuse military service if it is contrary to conscience or religious religion. However, the moment the army was professionalized, this issue became resolved in the Czech Republic.
The issue of conscientious objection in health law and medical ethics is discussed in detail and regulated by Act No 372/2011 Coll. on Health Services. In 2010, Resolution No. 1763 (2010) was also adopted, which relates specifically to conscientious objection. Both Act No. 372/2011 and Resolution No. 1763 (2010) address the situation of how to approach the situation where a health care professional refuses to provide health care to a patient. In such a case, a referral to another doctor or health service provider is made.
In the field of medical ethics and health law, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has developed a test for the admissibility of the application of conscientious objection in the area of compulsory vaccination.35 This institution of conscientious objection has been examined and reviewed by the highest judicial instances and is contained in Pl ÚS 19/14, and its relevance has resurfaced with the pandemic and the vaccination against COVID-19.
In the context of this issue, I have chosen not only to deal with the individual areas where conscientious objection may be invoked, which I have already mentioned here, but also with the possible approaches to medical ethics and the opposing views presented by Savulescu and Udo Schuklenko, which stand at the opposite counterpoint from Christopher Cowley.