ABSTRACT
This chapter defends the Reasonability View against several alternative views and further objections. Some defenders of the Incompatibility View argue that medical conscientious objectors base their refusals on claims whose genuineness is untestable; hence extending accommodations is arbitrary. The Reasonability View possesses a ready response: determining reasonability is not a matter of reading minds, but of public commitment to one’s values. This public commitment is evidenced by stating and defending one’s position in a formal hearing, publicly registering as a conscientious objector, and accepting costs with being a registered objector. Alternative approaches which suggest establishing a “free-market” approach or which argue that any theory founded upon the value of integrity preservation must fail are criticized and shown to be inferior to the Reasonability View. Finally, the chapter engages a view which argues that since assessing objectors’ reasons is incompatible with toleration, even objectors whose grounds are objectively in error should be accommodated. This is flawed since it conflicts with the tenet to assign primacy to patient well-being and amounts to claiming nothing less than the right to be unprofessional. This underscores the foundational claim in this book: the reasons of objecting professionals must be assessed before conscientious exemptions are extended.
