Integration of Catholic Values and Professional Obligations in the Provision of Family Planning Services

Abstract

Religious leaders of the Catholic church created guidelines for practicing medicine, that involve reproductive care restrictions that may conflict with professional obligations. To explore how Catholic obstetrician-gynecologists integrate their religious values and professional obligations related to family planning services. In this qualitative investigation, in 2018, US-based obstetrician-gynecologists were recruited through an online survey and were invited to participate in audio-recorded telephone interviews using a semistructured interview guide. Participants were obstetrician-gynecologists who self-identified as Catholic and reported providing reproductive health care as follows: (1) provide natural family planning only (low practitioners), (2) provide additional contraceptive methods (moderate practitioners), and (3) provide family planning services including abortion (high practitioners). The study purposively sampled those with higher self-reported religiosity. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to February 2019. The primary outcome was understanding how participants describe integration of Catholic values with family planning service provision. The telephone interviews explored their integration of Catholic values and professional obligations, and 3 coders analyzed the responses using grounded theory. Among the 34 Catholic obstetrician-gynecologists interviewed (27 women [79.4%]), there were 10 low, 15 moderate, and 9 high practitioners from 19 states. Participants' description of morality was consistent with Albert Bandura's Social-Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action. The findings were used to create a modified framework. Within each group of physicians, 3 themes demonstrating their reconciliations between Catholic values and professional obligations emerged; each of these themes reflected one of the medical ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, or justice. All 10 low practitioners primarily promoted natural family planning approaches to avoid iatrogenic risks and none provided abortion, reflecting nonmaleficence. Alternatively, moderate practitioners focused on nonmaleficence by offering contraception to prevent abortions. High practitioners primarily promoted patient autonomy by separating religious doctrine from medical practice. All had concerns for beneficence. In each group, 1 of the 4 medical ethical principles was underrepresented. In this qualitative analysis, Catholic obstetrician-gynecologists establish their family planning care provision practices by emphasizing certain moral and/or ethical principles over others. These findings highlight how physician morality in the realm of family planning service provision often involves certain religious and/or professional reconciliations. Understanding the dilemmas Catholic obstetrician-gynecologists face can guide professional development efforts and inform ongoing discussions about conscientious objection and provision.