Category: Repression of Conscience

RCOG faculty bars prolife doctors from receiving its degrees and diplomas

 Dr. Peter Saunders*

Doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to prescribing ‘contraceptives’ which act by killing human embryos are to be barred from receiving diplomas in sexual and reproductive health even if they undertake the necessary training according to new guidelines.

Under new rules issued by the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health (FSRH) earlier this year these doctors and nurses are also to be barred from membership of the faculty and from specialty training.

The FSRH is a faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists established on the 26th March 1993 as the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. In 2007 it changed its name to the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. [Full Text]

 

Swedish midwives must provide abortions even if they object

Smålandsnytt

Caution: machine assisted translation

Ellinor Grimmark denied job – was not discriminated against

It was not discriminatory of Jönköping County Council to deny Ellinor Grimmark the job of midwife when she refused to perform abortions. Thus says the Equality Ombudsman in dismissing the case.

The midwife Ellinor Grimmark felt discriminated against because of her faith, but after investigation the Discrimination Ombudsman (DO) felt that not to be the case.

“It was quite expected, I did not think the Swedish Equality Ombudsman would dare bring it up,”  Ellinor Grimmark told Smålandsnytt.

According to the DO, the County Council of Jönköping did not deny Ellinor Grimmark employment because of her beliefs in themselves, but because she was not prepared to carry out a task which is part of midwifery.

Although this had serious consequences for Ellinor Grimmark, this was proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of others, thought the DO.

Today,  Ellinor Grimmark is working as a nurse in California, but will soon start working as a midwife in Norway, where it is possible for a midwife to refrain from participating in abortions.

“But I intend to pursue this further.  We are just a short way down this  road,” she says.

However, the DO’s decision cannot be appealed, and the case is closed. [Original Swedish text]

Midwife ordered to pay $17,000 after opposing abortions at her hospital

LifeNews

Natalia Dueholm

How much does the truth cost?  For a Polish midwife, it could cost up to 50,000 złotych (approximately $17,000).

The management of a private Polish hospital has threatened legal action against Agata Rejman, a midwife, after she discussed abortions performed at the Specialist Hospital Pro-Familia (right) in Rzeszów.

Rejman’s legal troubles began after a January 2014 press conference organized by Senator Kazimierz Jaworski.  During the conference, Rejman described her anguish after having to participate in abortions at the hospital.
[Full text]

 

Swedish nurse takes a stand on conscience rights

 If soldiers can object to using weapons, why can’t health professionals refuse to assist at abortions?

Mercatornet

Mariola O’Brien

In 2011, the European Council adopted a resolution that protects healthcare workers’ right to freedom of conscience regarding abortion and euthanasia. Sweden has signed this agreement. But reality paints a different picture. Out of the 47 member states in the European Council, Finland and Sweden are the only two which do not uphold freedom of conscience in practice.

Ellinor Grimmark, 37, is the first midwife in Sweden to report a hospital to the Discrimination Ombudsman (DO) concerning abortion. She claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of her religious beliefs and moral convictions. Newly-graduated, she was fired from her position last summer because she refused to assist abortions. Even though there is a shortage of midwives at the moment, and even though she is willing to take on double shifts, she has been denied a job ever since. One employer had first agreed to hire her in spite of the “complication”, but withdrew the offer when her story began to spread in media.
Full Text

 

European parliament narrowly rejects report attacking freedom of conscience

By a narrow margin (351/319) the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe rejected a Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights put forward by Edite Estrela of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality.   The report complained of what it called “the abuse of conscientious objection” with respect to abortion in Ireland, Malta and Poland and other countries:

Conscientious objection’s practice has denied many women access to
reproductive health services, such as information about, access to, and purchase of contraception, prenatal testing, and lawful interruption of pregnancy. There are cases reported from Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Ireland and Italy where nearly 70% of all gynaecologists and 40% of all anaesthesiologists conscientiously object to providing abortion services.

It described conscientious objection to abortion as “widespread” and demanded that states should regulate and monitor the exercise of freedom of conscience – at least freedom of conscience exercised by “reproductive health care providers.”  The authors also assert institutions (such as hospitals) should not be allowed to operate according to conscientious or religious convictions. In its complaints about “the unregulated use of conscientious objection,” the report repeated the complaint of a 2010 report that was also rejected by the Assembly.

However, a minority opinion by author Anna Zaborska stated:

This non-binding resolution violates the EU Treaty and cannot be used to introduce right to abortion. . .No international legally binding treaty nor the ECHR nor customary international law can accurately be cited as establishing or recognizing such right. All EU institutions, bodies and agencies must remain neutral on the issue of abortion. . . . The human right of conscientious objection together with the responsibility of the state to ensure that patients are able to access medical care in particular in cases of emergency prenatal and maternal health care must be upheld. No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to practices which could cause the death of a human embryo.

The report has been returned to the committee for review, but there is no doubt that a similar report will be returned for another vote some time in the future. [Christian Medical Comment;  CNS News]