Category: Lawsuits

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]

Supreme Court of the Philippines

The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012

Opinions supporting freedom of conscience

Introduction:

Supreme Court of the Philippines

In  April, 2014, the Protection of Conscience Project’s critique of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Act) was confirmed by a ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. 

With respect to the issue of freedom of conscience among health care workers and institutions, of the fifteen Supreme Court judges:

  • 11 held that the mandatory referral provision in the law was an unconstitutional violation of freedom of conscience;
  •  10 of the 11 also ruled that forcing an objecting health care worker to provide “complete and correct information” about contraception was a violation of freedom of conscience
    • The eleventh judge (Del  Castillo, J.) held that a requirement to provide complete and correct information was not unconstitutional, as long as it was not used to suppress the freedom of objecting health care workers to express professional or other opinions concerning contraception.
MAJORITY
Lucas P. Bersamin
Antonio T. Carpio
Jose Catral Mendoza
Diosdado M. Peralta
Jose Portugal Perez
Presbitero J. Velasco
Martin S. Villarama Jr.
Concurring opinions
Roberto A. Abad
Arturo D. Brion
Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro
Concurring, dissenting in part
Mariano C.  Del Castillo (dissenting on providing information)
DISSENTING
Estala M. Perlas-Bernabe
Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Bienvenido L. Reyes
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

MAJORITY DECISION
Position of the Petitioners [P.60]
2. On Religious Accommodation and The Duty to Refer  [P.61]
Petitioners Imbong and Luat note that while the RH Law attempts to address religious sentiments by making provisions for a conscientious objector, the constitutional guarantee is nonetheless violated because the law also imposes upon the conscientious objector the duty to refer the patient seeking reproductive health services to another medical practitioner who would be able to provide for the patient’s needs. For the petitioners, this amounts to requiring the conscientious objector to cooperate with the very thing he refuses to do without violating his/her religious beliefs.190 . . . [Full text]

HHS preventive services mandate update

The Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta, Georgia and the Catholic Diocese of Savannah have been granted a permanent injunction barring the federal government from enforcing the HHS birth control mandate against them. [Catholic Culture]  In Oklahoma, 200 Catholic employers filed a suit against the federal government seeking the same kind of protection.  The Catholic Benefits Association wants to offer health insurance that does not include coverage for contraceptives. [Associated Press]  On 25 March, the United States Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two cases challenging the HHS mandate. [The Foundry]

Judge rules family cannot order caregivers to starve mother to death

In a 44 page judgement, Mr. Justice Greyell of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that family members cannot order caregivers at a nursing home to starve an 83 year old resident to death.  Margot Bentley, age 83, is in the final stages of Alzheimer’s disease.  Based on written instructions she left before being diagnosed with the disease, family members went to court to stop caregivers from spoonfeeding her when she opened her mouth to accept food.  The judge noted that she is not dying, and that to comply with their wishes wold mean that Mrs. Bentley would die from starvation and dehydration and not an underlying disease.

Having considered the evidence, he rejected the claim that Mrs.  Bentley is in a “vegetative state” as “neither useful nor accurate,” concluding, instead, that it was possible that she had sufficient mental function to decide whether or not to eat and drink and to communicate that decision in non-verbal ways.  He held that spoon-feeding was not “health care” within the meaning of the law, but a form of personal care.  While he agreed that, under the common law, a competent adult can refuse food and fluids and thus commit suicide, he ruled that there was no legal precedent for the finding that such a decision could be made on behalf of an incompetent person by a proxy decision maker.  On the other hand he recognized statutory and public policy considerations that would tell against such a finding.

The case is of interest because it demonstrates how the kind of directives the family pursued in this case can generate conflicts of conscience among caregivers and health care workers.

Supreme Court of Canada accepts appeal of assisted suicide/euthanasia decision

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal from the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that approved physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Carter v. Canada (Attorney General).