Conscientious Refusal and a Doctor’s Right to Quit Authors Name: Institution: Reconstruction Davis (2004) argues that doctors have the right not to offer patients procedures that go against their morals, e.g., abortion, as long as this rejection does not worsen the patient's condition if she/he sought the services from another doctor (p.76). However, putting a patient in such a position does not guarantee that their conditions will not worsen and therefore the doctor should go an extra mile and provide ‘restitution’. These (‘restitution’) are the steps a doctor takes after rejecting to offer the patient service to ensure their condition does not worsen. According to Davis (2004), ‘restitution’ is crucial since they respond to some of the ethical concerns that may arise from the refusal of the service, e.g., will the doctor offer moral counseling or refer the patient to another doctor (p.76). Analysis The argument by Davis (2004), is founded on four principles that explain the conclusion made in the argument. The first premise of the argument is that a doctor is justified to refuse a procedure to a patient if she/he is not their doctor (p.77). Additionally, the doctor should not interfere with the patient of another doctor, i.e., what the patient and his/her doctor do should not be obstructed (p.77). This is the second reasoning of Davis argument that acts as another basis for refusal of a procedure to a patient by a doctor on a conscientious basis. However, these two principles are pegged on the notion that interference cannot occur unless the requested procedure is overly immoral, i.e., the immorality degree can prompt a doctor to interfere.