Conscience, Competence, and Compliance: A Proposal for Ethical and Legal Reform of ACGME Abortion Training Standards Post-Dobbs
Following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ACGME’s abortion training standards face growing tensions with state laws and the conscience rights of physicians and institutions. This article examines these conflicts through bioethical principles and virtue ethics, arguing that medical education should cultivate both clinical competence and professional integrity.
It proposes four reforms: separating federal graduate medical education funding from abortion training, aligning requirements with state laws, protecting conscience-based institutional exemptions, and adopting an opt-in framework for trainees. Through alternative training pathways, these proposals seek to maintain educational rigor while respecting moral convictions and legal restrictions, supporting a more ethically pluralistic approach to medical education.
Limiting Conscience Rights in Obstetrics and Gynecology
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Committee Opinion in November 2007 titled “The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine.” This document, claiming to speak on behalf of the entire profession of Obstetrics and Gynecology, proposed that conscience rights of healthcare professionals have limits with regard to certain aspects of patient care. Despite calls for revision from many within the profession, this document was reaffirmed in 2016, unchanged. This document provides a detailed analysis of the ethical flaws in ACOG Committee Opinion 385.
Committee Opinion 1: Hippocratic Objection to Killing Human Beings in Medical Practice
Online Article Coming Soon. Click here to download Article PDF