Category: Countries

Irish Bishops’ briefing note on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013

The Catholic bishops of Ireland have sent a briefing note to the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) concerning the controversial Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013.  Among the criticisms of the bill was the following reference to the bill’s protection of conscience provision:

3.      The Bill also creates a number of serious moral, legal and Constitutional conflicts in the area of freedom of conscience and religious belief, notably:

A.  The Bill provides for conscientious objection by ‘any medical practitioner, nurse or midwife’ only. It excludes others who may be obliged to co-operate in providing abortion services against their conscience or religious belief. This is in contrast to the wording of the proposed Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill 2001, which provided for conscientious objection by ‘any person’ carrying out or assisting in an abortion. The operation of this clause is also unacceptable because it involves a form of co-operation in evil by obliging those who conscientiously object to knowingly put the patient in to the care of medical personnel who will carry out an abortion. In effect, therefore, medical personnel are being given no choice but to cooperate in an abortion. This is in contrast to the practice in many other countries which ask only that the patient be handed over to the care of other medical personnel. Limiting the scope of conscientious objection in this way is potentially in conflict with Article 44.2.3 of the Constitution, which states that: “The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status”, with the general direction of legal interpretation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and with recent UK based cases such as Doogan & Anor v NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board [2013] ScotCS CSIH 36.

B.  Article 44.2.3 also raises important questions of principle about the application of the Party Whip system to oblige members of the Oireachtas to vote in favour of this legislation, against their religious conscience. It may even open the possibility of a Constitutional challenge to the legislation itself on the basis of an un-constitutional legislative process.

C.  The obligation on ‘appropriate institutions’ identified by the Minister to provide abortion services may be in conflict with existing legal arrangements and, in some cases with Article 44.2.5 of the Constitution, which states that: “Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes”.

People need to be free to act on their conscience

Irish Examiner

Dónal O’Mathúna

CONSCIENTIOUS objection is a hugely important concept. On fundamental ethical issues, like life and death, people should have the freedom to act on their conscience.

This applies to those legislating on abortion and providing access to abortion. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 allows conscientious objection, but in the most limited way. Its provisions are more restrictive than in many other jurisdictions, which carries a chilling message. . .

. . . Forcing people to violate their conscience risks bending or breaking the moral compass that guides them. Therefore, legislators should be free to vote on this legislation according to their conscience. And anyone working in hospitals providing abortions should be able to consciously object to being involved. [Full text]

Update on American HHS controversy

The Department of Health and Human Services has confirmed a regulation that will require businesses with over 50 employees to provide health insurance for birth control and surgical sterilization, even if they object to doing so for reasons of conscience.  The regulations includes exemptions for objecting “religious employers” (largely limited to houses of worship) and objecting religious non-profit organizations.  However, the continued demand that objecting business owners be forced to comply and the nature of the exemptions remain unacceptable to many religious organizations.  Speaking for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, said:  

When it comes to religious liberty, the Department of Health and Human Services is acting like a kid who doesn’t want to eat his lima beans. Our Constitution and laws require them to protect religious exercise, but they really don’t want to, so they are trying every trick in the book to avoid doing so. But we will keep suing until the courts make HHS comply with its obligations. [Becket Fund News Release]

The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Committee has issued a report accusing the Obama administration and Department of Health and Human Services of “unprecedented abuse” of religious liberty.

There are now 61 civil suits filed against the regulation, with over 200 plaintiffs. [Becket Fund, HHS Information Central].  In one of them, a unanimous decision by the10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has directed a lower court allow a civil suit brought by Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores.  The owners of the company object to being forced to provide embryocidal forms of birth control.  They are seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the regulation [The Tennessean].  A Largo, Florida, company with the same objections has been granted a preliminary injunction [Tampa Tribune], as has Geneva College, a Christian college in Pennsylvania [NCR].

American Catholic bishops have been adamant that the HHS regulation is unacceptable, once again declaring a “Fortnight for Freedom” from 21 June to 4 July to encourage opposition to it and support for freedom of religion.  Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, has been one of the leading opponents of the law.  The Archdiocese of New York is among the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the regulation.  However, the Archdiocese of New York has, for years, been indirectly paying for health insurance for employees of the Catholic Health Care System that includes coverage for contraception and abortion.  The arrangement was approved by Cardinal Dolan’s predecessor, Archbishop John O’Connor, who died in 2000.  A spokesman for the Archdiocese stated that the coverage is provided “under protest.”  [New York Times]

What role does Conscience play in Medical Ethics?

  • D. Vincent Twomey, SVD* | . . . conscience is assumed to be a purely subjective thing, a personal preference . . .that is fundamentally irrational. . . The sincerity of those who hold a subjective view of conscience is not in doubt. But is it enough? More importantly, what is wrong about that all-pervasive contemporary understanding of conscience? For the rest of this paper, I will concentrate on such a misunderstanding in the hope of clarifying what conscience in fact is. . . Full Text

Most Flemish physicians avoid euthanasia

Only 400 of 20,000 Flemish physicians are trained to provide euthanasia.  It appears that most physicians do not want to be directly involved with it.  In consequence, the 400 are called upon frequently to provide the required second opinion and sometimes the lethal injection.  There have been complaints that they are not paid for the second opinion. [Bioedge]  Confirming the reluctance of physicians to participate in the procedure, Dr. Sarah Van Laer complains that “there are too few doctors ready to perform euthanasia” and that this is a “badly underestimated problem.” [Bioedge]