Category: Countries

Philippines RH Act: Rx for Controversy

Diatribe by Philippines’ President turns back the clock

Sean Murphy*

Abstract

Turning back the clock

In June, 2019, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte blamed the Catholic Church for obstructing government plans to reduce the country’s birth rate and  population.  “They think that spewing out human beings by the millions is a gift from God,” he claimed, adding that health care workers should resign if they are unwilling to follow government policy on population control for reasons of conscience.

Duterte’s authoritarian diatribe clashes with a ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines and turns the clock back to times of harsh and extreme rhetoric when the current law (commonly called the RH Act) was being developed.  The RH Act was the product of over fourteen years of public controversy and political wrangling. It was of concern when it was enacted because it threatened some conscientious objectors with imprisonment and fines. 

In January, 2013, the Project reviewed the Act in detail.  Project criticisms about the law’s suppression of freedom of conscience were validated in April, 2014, when the Supreme Court of the Philippines struck down sections of the law as unconstitutional.

Given the long history of attempts at legislative coercion in the Philippines and President Duterte’s obvious hostility to freedom of conscience and religion in health care, the Project’s 2013 review of the RH Act is here updated and republished.

Assuming that the Philippines government’s concern about population growth in the country is justified, it does not follow that it is best addressed by the kind of state bullying exemplified by President Duterte’s ill-tempered and ill-considered eruption.  Aside from the government’s enormous practical advantage in its control of health care facilities, it has at its disposal all of the legitimate means available to democratic states to accomplish its policy goals.  Not the least of these is persuasive rational argument, an approach fully consistent with the best traditions of liberal democracy, and far less dangerous than state suppression of fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Turning back the clock

A history of coercive legislative measures

Background

The “RH Act” of 2012: General comments

The “RH Act” of 2012: Specific provisions

Freedom of conscience and religion

The Supreme Court weighs in

The way forward

Appendix “A”:  Philippines population control and management policies

Appendix “B”: The “RH Act” (2012)  in brief

Project Comments

New Northern Ireland abortion law ‘may give health staff no choice’

Midwife voices fear for conscientious objectors if NI legislation changes

Belfast Telegraph

Allan Preston

Health workers in Northern Ireland could be left “exposed” by changes to abortion law, a lecturer in midwifery has claimed.

Debbie Duncan spent over 30 years working as a midwife in Scotland and England and now lectures at the school of nursing and midwifery at Queen’s University Belfast.

She was never obliged to take part in abortions during her career as the law allowed her to conscientiously object.

Ms Duncan said she fears “too much change with no regulation” means the same protections may not apply here. . . [Full text]

The conscience rights of health practitioners must be protected

A NSW bill could deter some of the brightest and best from entering health services

MercatorNet

Greg Walsh

One of the main concerns about the Bill recently introduced to amend New South Wales laws on abortion is how health practitioners with a conscientious objection to participating in abortion will be regulated. Under the Bill, health practitioners must disclose that they have a conscientious objection if they are asked to perform, assist with, provide advice about, or make a decision concerning whether an abortion should be performed.

There is also a referral requirement if a request is made by a patient for the practitioner to perform an abortion on the patient or to advise the patient about an abortion. In such a situation the practitioner must transfer the care of the patient to someone who the practitioner reasonably believes does not have a conscientious objection or advise the patient how to locate such a person. . . [Full text]

Quebec court hands down ‘robust rejection’ of assisted dying criteria. Here’s what to know

Global News

Maham Abedi

Medically-assisted dying became a discussion point on the second day of the 2019 federal election trail, as leaders reacted to a ruling by the Quebec Superior Court that part of the country’s law is “unconstitutional.”

On Wednesday, a Quebec judge ruled that both the province’s and country’s laws on assisted dying were too restrictive and therefore discriminated against some who sought the procedure. . . [Full text]

Dutch Court Clears Doctor in Euthanasia of Dementia Patient

New York Times

Palko Karasz

LONDON — A court in the Netherlands on Wednesday acquitted a doctor who had been accused of unlawful euthanasia for administering a lethal injection to a patient with dementia, a case that raised questions about the clarity of the country’s law in such circumstances.

The patient, 74, who has not been publicly identified, had asked in writing for doctors to end her life if she had to be admitted to a nursing home, and if she thought the time was right. But, when she entered the home, incapacitated, she appeared to have changed her mind, giving “mixed signals,” about her intentions, prosecutors said. . . . [Full text]