Category: Countries

The “Medical Conscience” Civil Rights Movement

First Things

Wesley J. Smith*

Until recently, healthcare was not culturally controversial. Medicine was seen as primarily concerned with extending lives, curing diseases, healing injuries, palliating symptoms, birthing babies, and promoting wellness – and hence, as a sphere in which people of all political and social beliefs were generally able to get along.

That consensus has been shattered. Doctors today may be asked to provide legal but morally contentious medical interventions such as sex selection abortion, assisted suicide, preimplantation genetic diagnosis of IVF embryos, even medications that inhibit the onset of puberty for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As a consequence, medical practice has become embroiled in political and cultural conflict. . .
Full Text

Protection in the Bill for health staff with conscientious objection

Isle of Man Today

Health staff who have a conscientious objection to abortion will receive protection when the law is reformed.

Members approved an amendment, tabled by Chris Robertshaw (Douglas East), to set out the protection available to staff.

The final version of the amendment was the result of consultation between Mr Robertshaw and Dr Alex Allinson.

The bill already stipulated health workers could not be forced to take part in abortion treatment if they had a genuine conscientious objection. . . [Full text]

 

Six things to know about the abortion bill

Main provisions of the General Scheme of a Bill to Regulate Termination of Pregnancy

The Irish Times

Minister for Health Simon Harris outlined in the Seanad some of the main provisions of the General Scheme of a Bill to Regulate the Termination of Pregnancy, if the referendum on whether to repeal the Eighth Amendment goes ahead and is passed:

1. Risk to life and health of the woman

. . . it would be the Government’s intention to permit termination of pregnancy in cases where there is a risk to the life or of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman, without a distinction between risk from physical or mental health. . . .

2. Risk to health in an emergency

. . . would cover situations in which the risk to the life or of serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman is immediate.

3. Conditions likely to lead to the death of the foetus

. . . the Government would propose to permit termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.. .

4. Early pregnancy (12 weeks)

. . . it would be the Government’s intention to permit termination up to 12 weeks of pregnancy . . .

5.  Offences

. . . a woman who procures or seeks to procure a termination of pregnancy for herself . . . would not be guilty of an offence.

6. Other issues

. . . the Government would also propose to provide in legislation for a number of other issues . . . These would include, for example . . . permitting conscientious objection. . . . [Full Text]

Mexican Senate approves medical conscientious objection bill

Catholic News Agency

Mexico City, Mexico, Mar 26, 2018 / 06:14 pm (ACI Prensa).- The Mexican Senate has approved a measure protecting the conscientious objections of medical personnel who hold moral or ethical objections to certain treatments.

The decree, approved March 22, states that “professionals, technicians, aides, social service providers that are part of the National Healthcare System shall be able to invoke the right of conscientious objection and excuse themselves from participating and/or cooperating in all those programs, activities, practices, treatments, methods or research that contravenes their freedom of conscience based on their values or ethical principles.” . . . [Full text]

 

Mexico enacts provision protecting freedom of conscience for physicians, nurses

Sean Murphy*

Mexico has added a provision to its General Law on Health recognizing freedom of conscience of all physicians and nurses in relation to all services, except in emergencies and life-threatening situations.  In doing so, those responsible took note of existing provisions in The Bioethics Code for Health Personnel and The Code of Conduct for Health Personnel.  The latter includes a particularly striking passage:

32.  It should be emphasized that doctors are  professionals of science and conscience, and cannot be reduced to mere instruments of the patient’s will, since, like the patient, they  are free and responsible persons with a unique collection of values that regulate their lives.

There is no requirement for referral, which many objecting health care workers would find unacceptable because of concern that referral would make them complicit in what they believe to be wrongful conduct.  The new provision is specific to freedom of conscience and does not address issues of access and availability of non-objecting personnel, which will presumably be managed administrative measures or other legal means.