An interesting and tricky Scottish case has come up for decision in the UK Supreme Court this morning. Back in 2012, two midwives employed by Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board - Mary Teresa Doogan and Concepta Wood - brought a judicial review petition against the health board, arguing that they were being forced to "participate" in abortions, despite their conscientious objections, as devout Catholics, to the practice.
Section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 recognises the right to "conscientious objection to participation in treatment," providing that "no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection."
Neither Doogan nor Wood were obliged to participate in the medical procedures producing abortions in the Southern General, but the pair were responsible for delegating, supervising and supporting other healthcare professionals in the treatment of patients undergoing termination of pregnancy. They argued that the conscientious objection provisions in the Abortion Act extended not only to participating in abortion procedures, but should also exempt them from responsibility for timetabling and supervising the practices they object to.
Neither Doogan nor Wood were obliged to participate in the medical procedures producing abortions in the Southern General, but the pair were responsible for delegating, supervising and supporting other healthcare professionals in the treatment of patients undergoing termination of pregnancy. They argued that the conscientious objection provisions in the Abortion Act extended not only to participating in abortion procedures, but should also exempt them from responsibility for timetabling and supervising the practices they object to.
At first instance in the Court of Session, Lady Smith rejected this argument, holding that the Abortion Act's right of conscientious objection did not extend to the midwives' case-management responsibilities, as they didn't amount to "participating in treatment." Counsel for the health board argued that the logic of the midwives' argument could very well extend to the ward cleaner, whose scrubbing - in some sense - facilitates abortion in the hospital. Could, should they be able to argue that their mopping representing "participating" in abortions, and to decline to participate on religious grounds? Lady Smith thought not, and rejected Doogan and Wood's argument.
The Inner House of the Court of Session had other ideas. The midwives appealed, successfully. Lady Dorrian held that Lady Smith's approach was too narrow, and the conscientious objection enshrined in the Abortion Act should be taken to extend - not just to direct participation in abortion procedures - but much more widely, to encompass the kinds of activities the midwives were being obliged to undertake in the Southern General. The Inner House held that:
As Lord Diplock observed in the RCN case, it is a matter on which many people have strong moral and religious convictions, and the right of conscientious objection is given out of respect for those convictions and not for any other reason. It is in keeping with the reason for the exemption that the wide interpretation which we favour should be given to it. It is consistent with the reasoning which allowed such an objection in the first place that it should extend to any involvement in the process of treatment, the object of which is to terminate a pregnancy. This is also consistent with our conclusion that the only circumstance of sections 1(1)(a) to (d) to which the exemption does not apply is section 1(1)(b), and that the only circumstance when the objection cannot prevail should be when the termination is necessary to save life or prevent grave permanent injury, because in such a situation the real purpose is not to effect a termination but to save life or prevent serious permanent injury.
Today, the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board ask the UK Supreme Court to reverse this decision, and to endorse a more limited conception of the right to conscientious objection to abortions. So, "does s.4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967, which provides that "no person shall be under any duty to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection", entitle a Labour Ward Co-ordinator to refuse to delegate to, supervise and/or support midwives providing care to patients undergoing termination procedures?"
That's for Lady Hale and Lords Reed, Hodge, Wilson and Hughes to decide.
That's for Lady Hale and Lords Reed, Hodge, Wilson and Hughes to decide.
Religion is a pain in the arse
ReplyDeleteA deep and penetrating analysis of a tricky and morally inflammatory question, and indicative of the inherent soundness of the Whig view of history.
DeleteMary is a close friend of mine. She is a compassionate lady who cares for women in a non judgmental way. She has been forced to take these actions as the Health Board wanted her to violate her conscience despite her legal right in the 1967 to having a conscientious objection to facilitating an abortion.
ReplyDeleteKevin, I am an Atheist who considers that if I had sought or needed an abortion it would be dealt with in a professional way by people who LEFT THEIR RELIGION AT THE DOOR. If your dear close friend cannot hack it then I suggest she looks for other employment. I got really fed up with being asked by one or other of my Catholic colleagues to contribute to their pet cause. Regardless there are too many people in this world and if we stop one more from being brought into misery so be it. I will say that the teaching of Mary's Church cause more abortions to be needed simply because of the lack of prevention of conception. Time for the Pope and some Catholics to recognise that.
ReplyDeleteI am a Christian who considers that if I sought or needed to have an inconvenient person removed it would be dealt with by people who LEFT THEIR CONSCIENCE AT THE DOOR.
DeleteEmbryos (the truly vast majority of abortions are of embryos) are not legally or biologically persons. They are potential persons with necessary developmental stages to complete even to become viable foetuses.
DeleteI am a Developmental Scientist so I understand developmental stages and the biological realities of those stages far, far better than you obviously do.
@ muscleguysblog16 November 2014 13:13
Delete"Embryos (the truly vast majority of abortions are of embryos) are not legally or biologically persons. They are potential persons with necessary developmental stages to complete even to become viable foetuses."
Yet living, correct? Can dead sperm fertilise an ovum? Can a necrotic embryo become foetuses?
"I am a Developmental Scientist so I understand developmental stages and the biological realities of those stages far, far better than you obviously do."
This is a blasphemy to your religion of science? Perhaps there ought to be a law against it.
Science upholds some weird contradictions without any scientific answers. The Great Pyramid for example... a tomb, only it does not have a burial chamber. It took the ancients 20 years to construct, yet no modern company could build one to those specifications in that time scale, or at all.
You are conflating life with sentient life... Do you cite as proof that because you left your house at 8 o'clock that you were on your way to work, and not off to see your mate, and not throwing a 'sickie'?
Trust me, says muscleguy, I'm a scientist. Well, I bow to your obviously superior intellect. As a mere layman, I was deluding myself that something with a full human genome was human.
DeleteA quote from the film "Kingdom Of Heaven"...
ReplyDelete"King Baldwin IV: A King may move a man, a father may claim a son, but remember that even when those who move you be Kings, or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus." Or that, "Virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice. Remember that."
Personally, I feel, if the law is used to compel someone to act against one's conscience it is a bad law. This is addressed in the act itself, to make it a fair law. It ought to be given the widest reading to keep it a fair law. I'm with Lord Diplock on this, and would hope the Supreme Court rules this way. It is not about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it is about being forced against to facilitate one against strongly held beliefs.
Well, that's my tuppence.
Something else has struck me, and it was niggling me before but could not put me finger on it then, but; IMO, not only was Lady Smith's ruling too narrow it was also flawed. If she accepted the argument that "the logic of the midwives' argument could very well extend to the ward cleaner, whose scrubbing - in some sense - facilitates abortion in the hospital", it would be to deny protection under the law to a health service employee on the grounds of 'employment status'.
DeleteFor example, and highly improbable, granted, though not impossible. If there was only one treatment room in the ward which was SOLELY used for terminations, and the only cleaner on that ward held the strong belief that cleaning this room led him/her to believe that their duties contributed to the taking of life. What then? Respect for this individual's belief would see a simple solution, swap the ward cleaner with one from a different ward who had no similar conviction... solved. Life experience has taught me HR personnel are usually not the best example of dedicated professionals.
I am no way religious. Strongly held beliefs are not always born out of religious conviction. I do not believe for one second that the actions of the midwives was to have the abortion law struck down, but the provisions within the act for THEIR RIGHTS TOO to be upheld.
Again, abortion and religious freedom are not the issue here.
Well, should anyone, ie an adult within an institution, be entitled to indoctrinate children with narrow religious doctrine to which they have no choice even as conscientious objectors for example?
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense for those working in the medical practices that their religion should not encroach on their professional work, this is 2014 after all.
Clearly we ought to burn books. Problem solved.
DeleteAnd the relevance of the year would be...?
DeleteDid they ask to be redeployed? I mean, if my job expected me to facilitate something unconscionable I would ask, for other work.
ReplyDeleteA point made to me by a medical friend: why not be redeployed onto a maternity ward where their convictions would be neither here nor there? On the evidence presented to the court, it seems they haven't.
DeleteWere they offered redeployment? Not the same question.
Delete