Role of Physicians on Ethics Committees after Dobbs

This Perspective article explores the evolving responsibilities and ethical dilemmas faced by physicians serving on hospital ethics committees in the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. The authors caution against allowing these committees to become enforcement arms for abortion restrictions, urging physicians to uphold their moral and professional integrity. They advocate for ethics consultations that center patient autonomy, resist unjust laws, and provide moral support to distressed clinicians and patients, especially in states where reproductive rights are severely restricted. The authors argue that physicians should decline roles that compromise ethical standards in favor of legal compliance.

This Perspective article explores the evolving responsibilities and ethical dilemmas faced by physicians serving on hospital ethics committees in the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. The authors caution against allowing these committees to become enforcement arms for abortion restrictions, urging physicians to uphold their moral and professional integrity. They advocate for ethics consultations that center patient autonomy, resist unjust laws, and provide moral support to distressed clinicians and patients, especially in states where reproductive rights are severely restricted. The authors argue that physicians should decline roles that compromise ethical standards in favor of legal compliance.