Category: Repression of Conscience

Doctor risks his career after refusing abortion referral

Perth Now/Herald Sun

Miranda Devine

A DOCTOR risks being deregistered because he allegedly refused a referral for an Indian couple who wanted to abort a healthy unborn baby girl at 19 weeks, simply because they wanted a boy.     

Dr Mark Hobart, 55, has been under investigation by the Medical Board of Victoria for five months, accused of having committed an offence under the state’s controversial Abortion Law Reform Act of 2008.

His patient and her husband requested a sex-selection abortion after an ultrasound determined their fetus was female.

They only wanted a boy, the husband told Dr Hobart, who, as a practising Catholic, had a conscientious objection to providing the abortion.

Under Victorian law, he was obliged to refer the patient to a doctor he knew would terminate the pregnancy.

But Dr Hobart doesn’t know any doctor who would agree to abort a healthy baby for sex selection reasons.

“The general response from my colleagues is disbelief and revulsion,” he said.

In any case, a referral is not necessary for an abortion. Hobart’s patient independently procured the abortion a few days later. Neither she nor her husband made any complaint.

But Dr Hobart now finds himself subject to a star chamber inquiry by the Medical Board of Victoria.  [Full text]

Irish government signals intention to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion

Physician recommends expansion of abortion services beyond designated facilities

Quoting an unnamed official of the Irish Department of Health, the Irish Independent has reported that the Irish government intends to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions under the new Irish abortion law.  The official is quoted as saying that the new law provides for conscientious objection for individuals, but the exemption ” does not apply to a hospital.”

The Irish Independent also reports that Dr. Kevin Walsh, a cardiologist at Mater Hospital, Dublin, has said that more hospitals should be designated to provide abortions, as he believes that the obstetric hospitals do not have the resources to manage women who are “pregnant and critically ill with heart disease.”   Abortions in such circumstances would be better provided in acute care hospitals, he said, “on an urgent planned basis rather than immediate emergency basis.”

Ostala bez posla u kninskoj bolnici: “Dali su mi otkaz jer nisam pristala sudjelovati u pobačaju”

Slobodna Dalmacija
3 August, 2013

Liječnici i medicinske sestre u Hrvatskoj mogu se pozvati na prigovor savjesti u situacijama kada ih njihova vjerska uvjerenja priječe da sudjeluju u medicinskim zahvatima protivnim postulatima vjere. Jedan od takvih zahvata je namjerni prekid trudnoće.

Na priziv savjesti, međutim, ne mogu se pozvati vjernice primalje. Makar se ne mogu pozvati u Općoj bolnici “Hrvatski ponos” u Kninu jer bi, poput Jage Stojak, mogle ostati bez posla.

‘Slomljene’ na razne načine

Jagi Stojak (49), naime, nakon 27 godina radnoga staža, od kojih je posljednjih 14 provela radeći kao primalja u kninskoj bolnici, na kućnu adresu u Kninu stigla je Odluka o redovitom otkazu ugovora o radu jer je 14. lipnja ove godine odbila prisustvovati zahvatu namjernog prekida trudnoće pozvavši se na priziv savjesti. -Nije to bio prvi i jedini put kad sam kao praktična vjernica, katolikinja, odbila sudjelovati u tom zahvatu. O tome se mnogo polemiziralo i sastančilo u bolnici jer je više primalja bilo istog uvjerenja. . . [Puni Tekst]

Australian physician threatened with discipline for refusing to refer for sex-selective abortion

Couple wanted a boy –  wanted to abort girl

Dr. Mark Hobart, a physician in Melbourne, Australia, refused to refer a couple for an abortion at 19 weeks gestation.  The couple wanted the abortion because they had learned that the woman was carrying a girl.  They wanted a boy, not a girl.  They found another physician without the referral and had the abortion.

Under the state of Victoria’s Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, objecting physicians are obliged to refer patients seeking abortions to a willing colleague.  The law was passed despite vigorous opposition from health care workers who protested the Act’s suppression of freedom of conscience.

Dr. Hobart is aware of the law and refuses, for reasons of conscience, to conform to it. [Herald Sun] [Related: Couple abort girl because they wanted a boy]

 

 

 

 

Sweden discriminates against conscientious objection

News Release

Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe

Sweden lacks respect both for the fundamental freedom of conscience laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights and for the democratic proceedings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. On 7 March the FAFCE filed a collective complaint against Sweden on the grounds of lack of respect for articles 11 (right to protection of health) and E (Non-Discrimination) of the European Social Charter.

On 7 October 2010 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted resolution (1763(2010)) The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care, a text that invites member States to develop comprehensive and clear regulations that define and regulate conscientious objection with regard to health and medical services.

The Swedish Parliament voted its own initiative resolution against this text in May 2011, despite the fact that the resolution was adopted according to the democratic process that regulates all decisions taken at the Council of Europe. By not respecting this fundamental right for any citizen across Europe, Sweden actually breaches the very principles that are the foundation of the Council of Europe: Human Rights, Rule of Law and Democracy:

“The Report of Christine McCafferty, “Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection”, that preceded the Resolution 1763, caused a debate in Sweden about freedom of conscience for health care workers. The Swedish standing Committee has remained negative to the content of Resolution 1763 and the Swedish delegation has been directed by the Swedish Government to take action to accomplish a “change” of this resolution.

On 11 May, 2011, the Swedish Parliament debated the report, Resolution 1763 and its recommendations after a report from the Foreign Affairs Committee. The prospect that medical professionals and health care workers might exercise freedom of conscience initiated a debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee Report recommended that the Parliament should advise the Government to be “critical of the content of Resolution 1763” and consider “that the delegation should work to bring about a change in the nature of this resolution.” [1]The Left Party added a “reservation” suggesting that the Parliament ask for the abrogation of Resolution 1763. The Sweden Democrats, in contrast, expressed support for the Resolution in a separate reservation. The Swedish Parliament accepted the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Sweden thus formally set itself against freedom of conscience for health care workers and against the goals of Article 11 of the European Social Charter.” (FAFCE’s collective complaint).

The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe, FAFCE, a member of the INGO Conference of the Council of Europe and deeply attached to the values promoted by the latter has paid close attention since to the implementation of the resolution.

FAFCE’s President Antoine Renard stresses that “The right to conscientious objection is a safeguard for all of us, it provides a possibility for medical staff to enlighten their work by their conscience in relation to each one of their patients. The importance of conscience in the medical field grows every day as technology moves forward and medical staff is faced with ever more complicated decisions to make. Practising medicine is a human and moral activity, not just a technical one, as Hippocrates pointed this out centuries before our time.”

Considering that freedom of conscience is a fundamental right laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and that its restriction is contrary to both these legal instruments and to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the FAFCE has been very concerned with Sweden’s lack of respect for the principles set forth by the resolution, which have still not been implemented there.

Mr Renard explains that this is why the FAFCE has filed a collective complaint against Sweden: “We hope that our collective complaint against Sweden will raise international awareness of this lack of respect for the democratic procedure and for the fundamental right to freedom of conscience, there is no reason that Swedish medical staff should be deprived of a right laid down by several European human rights instruments”.

Contact Maria Hildingsson: +32 4 70 20 39 18 or info@fafce.org