The Constitutional Tribunal was to resolve the issue on the subject of doctors’ use of the conscience clause in practice, and so it did. In the author’s opinion, the essence of the ruling concerns lies in the application of this clause in cases which can collectively be called urgent. Based on the analysis of the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of 7 October 2015, it seems that the Tribunal has recognized the superiority of doctors’ conscience over the obligation to provide medical assistance in all those cases in which such assistance is necessary. In the author’s opinion, this allows doctors to refuse to provide medical assistance in all those cases where there is no immediate threat to the patient’s life. However, the refusal to provide medical assistance may lead to such a threat, and therefore such assistance is absolutely necessary, since its absence may result in negative consequences for the patient’s health and life. As a result of the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling and the amendment of the Act on the professions of a doctor and a dentist, the patient has lost the possibility of obtaining medical assistance in so-called urgent cases, that is, all those cases in which the failure of a doctor to provide assistance may result in an immediate threat to the health and life of the patient. Based on a qualitative analysis of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the author’s goal was to offer an insight on the application by the doctors of the new model of the medical conscience clause, in practice associated with a narrowed scope of health services provided, as well as to outline the dangers of amending the Act on the professions of a doctor and a dentist in the subject area.