Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T22:08:03.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Balance of Rights: The Italian Way to the Abortion Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2023

Massimo Reichlin  and
Andrea Lavazza Open the ORCID record for Andrea Lavazza [Opens in a new window]
Massimo Reichlin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
Andrea Lavazza*
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroethics, Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. Email: lavazza67@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling triggered a global debate about access to abortion and the legislative models governing it. In the United States, there was a sudden reversal of federal guidance about pregnancy termination that is unprecedented in Western and high-income countries. The strong polarization on the issue of abortion and the difficulty of finding a point of compromise lead one to consider the experiences of countries that have had different paths. Italy stands as a candidate for being a partially alternative model because it allows abortion up to 12 weeks, but without considering it a subjective right. The legislation in place since 1978 aims to balance the interests of the fetus and those of the woman. An issue often raised concerning Italian law is that of conscientious objection granted to doctors. Many gynecologists declare themselves objectors, and this makes access to abortion more difficult in some regions of Italy. After discussing this issue and envisaging different ways to deal with it, the article concludes by highlighting new dilemmas about a possible divorce between the law and medical ethics in different directions and offers some avenues to begin setting up a response.

Keywords

RoeDobbsconscientious objectionItalian Act 194medical ethics
Type
Special Section: Quo Vadis Abortion: Is Reasonableness an Option?
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 2023 , pp. 368 - 377
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Beckman, LJ. Abortion in the United States: The continuing controversy. Feminism & Psychology 2017;27(1):101–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Paltrow, LM, Harris, LH, Marshall, MF. Beyond abortion: The consequences of overturning Roe. The American Journal of Bioethics 2022, 22(8):3–15 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3. See note 2, Paltrow et al. 2022.

4. https://time.com/6173229/countries-abortion-illegal-restrictions/.

5. Hanafin, P. Refusing disembodiment: Abortion and the paradox of reproductive rights in contemporary Italy. Feminist Theory 2009, 10:227–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Palmaro, M. Aborto & 194: Fenomenologia di una legge ingiusta. Milan: SugarCo; 2008 Google Scholar.

7. Ministero della Salute, 2022, Relazione del Ministro della Salute sulla attuazione della legge contenente norme per la tutela sociale della maternità e per l’interruzione volontaria di gravidanza (legge 194/78). Dati definitivi 2020, Rome Google Scholar.

8. Minerva, F. Conscientious objection in Italy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2015;41:170–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

9. Conti L. Il tormento e lo scudo. Milan: Mazzotta; 1981.

10. See note 5, Hanafin 2009.

11. Caruso, E. Abortion in Italy: Forty years on. Feminist Legal Studies 2020;28:87–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Bo, M, Zotti, CM, Charrier, L. Conscientious objection and waiting time for voluntary abortion in Italy. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 2015;20:272–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

13. Italian Committee for Bioethics. Conscientious Objection and Bioethics. Rome: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Dipartimento per l’informazione e l’editoria; 2012 Google Scholar.

14. Bo, M, Zotti, CM, Charrier, L. The no correlation argument: Can the morality of conscientious objection be empirically supported? The Italian case. BMC Medical Ethics 2017,18:64 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

15. Autorino, T, Mattioli, F, Mencarini, L. The impact of gynecologists’ conscientious objection on abortion access. Social Science Research 2020;87:102403 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16. See note 8, Minerva 2015;41:170–3.

17. Minerva, F. Conscientious objection, complicity in wrongdoing, and a not-so-moderate approach. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 2017;26(1):109–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Savulescu, J. Conscientious objection in medicine. British Medical Journal 2006;332:294–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

19. Fiala, C, Arthur, J. There is no defence for “conscientious objection” in reproductive health care. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2017;216:254–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Schuklenk, U. Conscience‑based refusal of patient care in medicine: A consequentialist analysis. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2019;40:523–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Lalli, C. C’è chi dice no. Dalla leva all’aborto. Come cambia l’obiezione di coscienza. Milan: Il Saggiatore; 2011 Google Scholar.

22. Reichlin, M. The reasonable standard for conscientious objection in healthcare. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2022;19:255–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. Symons, X. Conscientious objection in health care: Why the professional duty argument is unconvincing. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2022;20:1–9 Google Scholar.

24. Saporiti, M. La coscienza disubbidiente. Ragioni, tutele e limiti dell’obiezione di coscienza. Milan: Giuffrè; 2014 Google Scholar.

25. See note 8, Minerva 2015.

26. Rodger, D, Blackshow, BP. Quotas: Enabling conscientious objection to coexist with abortion access. Health Care Analysis 2021;29(2):154–69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

27. See note 1, Beckman 2017.

28. This was the subject of a Hastings Conversation held on November 18, 2022 (https://www.thehastingscenter.org/patient-harms-and-professional-obligations-after-dobbs).

29. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, revised edition; 1999 [1971]CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Delmas C, Brownlee K. Civil Disobedience. Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/civil-disobedience/; 2021.

31. The authors thank a reviewer for pressing them on this point.

32. A.L. thanks Mateus Eduardo Romão for the help with bibliographic research.