Wischik presents an extensive reply to our paper on conscientious objection, which explores the implications of distinguishing ‘medical acts’ from ‘socioclinical acts’. He provides an extensive legal analysis of the issues surrounding conscientious objection, drawing on the concepts of professional practice and consequentialism. Invoking some of these concepts, we respond and demonstrate that Wischik does not seriously engage with our argument. Instead, he merely proffers his preference for legal positivism, which – when viewed as the fount of justice (as Wischik seems to hold) instead of a tool in its service – necessarily bases rightness on might rather than truth. We also argue that in several important areas, Wischik is factually mistaken.

Wischik 对我们关于依良心拒服兵役的论文进行了广泛的答复，该论文探讨了区分“医疗行为”和“社会临床行为”的含义。他利用专业实践和结果主义的概念，对围绕良心拒服兵役的问题进行了广泛的法律分析。援引其中一些概念，我们回应并证明 Wischik 并没有认真参与我们的论点。相反，他只是表达了他对法律实证主义的偏爱，当它被视为正义的源泉（正如 Wischik 似乎持有的）而不是为其服务的工具时——必然将正义建立在力量而不是真理的基础上。我们还认为，在几个重要领域，Wischik 实际上是错误的。