Category: Protection of Conscience Project

Government declines to rule out prosecution of conscientious objectors

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

A spokesperson for the British Columbia Ministry of Health has declined to provide assurance that health care workers who object to abortion will not be prosecuted under the Access to Abortion Services Act.

The Act could be used to prosecute health care workers in “bubble zones” who decline to participate in abortion, or express disapproval of abortion in meetings or private conversations. It could also be used against clergy or counsellors providing pastoral care in “bubble zones” who provide information about abortion, or express disapproval of abortion.

The potential for conflict was first brought to the attention of the Minister of Health in 1995. It was raised again in correspondence this year with the Okanagan Similkameen Health Region and the Minister of Heath, as a result of discussion about the imposition of  a “bubble zone” at Kelowna General Hospital.

The Minister of Health refused to provide written assurance that the Act would not be applied against conscientious objectors, and refused to amend the Act. The Okanagan  Similkameen Health Region declined to consider the question, since a “bubble zone” had not been imposed on the Kelowna General Hospital.

A report on the subject is available on the Protection of Conscience Project website (Report 2000-01)

Project letter to the editor, The Standard

A number of health care professionals have moral or ethical objections to dispensing the ‘morning after pill’, so a recent article in The Standard (“Morning-after pill poses moral dilemma for some Mds”, 29 June 2000) is of interest beyond the community served by your paper. I would like to make two points.

First: though the drug in question was described as a ‘contraceptive’ that ‘prevents pregnancy’, many who are familiar with the action of the drug consider it an abortifacient, not a contraceptive, and object to dispensing it for that reason. Moreover, people attempting to understand the issues involved need to be aware that the words ‘abortion’, ‘pregnancy’, ‘conception’ and ‘contraception’ are often assigned completely different meanings by parties in the dispute about Preven.

Second: the good news in the story is almost too obvious for many to see. The woman obtained the drug that she wanted, and the physician was not forced to involve himself in something that he considered to be morally abhorrent. Arrangements at the hospital accommodated both her request for the drug, and his request not to have someone else’s morality imposed upon him.

This is the kind of common-sense accommodation that ought to be more widely practised.

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Faigheann coiste Ill-phairti Oireachtais run mar gheall ar saoirse choinsiasa

Tacaíocht choinsiasa

Fuáir an Coiste Ill-phairti Oireachtais ar an mBunreacht, pléadáil I scríbhinn on gComhairle Saoirse Choinsiasa, ar an nga oibrithe I gcúrsaí leighis agus daoine nach iad a bheith cosainte ó éigeantalacht agus di-mheas.

Chuir Riarthóir an Phróiseas, Sean ó Murchu, in úil go bhfuil béim an phléadáil o chuile éisteachtai eile an Choiste go dáta. “Ní faoi geinmhilleadh,@ adeir sé, “ach  faoi saoirse choinsiasa, chomh fada is a bhaineann sé le cursai leighis faoi lathair, ata  na smaointe seo.@

“Mo lean,” a mhinigh sé, “na h-argointi faoi chúrsai léighis go dtí seo-ni raibh siad riamh curtha, ionas     go mbeadh, mar deir diad (seal mhachnamh stuamtha), agus mar gheall air sin ni raibh aon mhachnamh deanta ar na rudai tharlaionn dóibh siud ata in aghaidh geinmhilleadh de réir  choinsiasa”.

Thagair an t-Uasal ó Murchu don staitistic a rinne iarracht soiléiriú, nuair nach raibh an cúrsa leighis seo sásúil do go leor daoine,nach raibh iachall ar na daoine sin páirt a ghlacadh ann. Rinne an pléadáil I scríbhinn an poinnte nach bhfuil sé sin fíor. Ní dheanann an pléadáil aon phoinnti faoi moltaí spesificiula-fagtar iad seo faoi chúraim an Choiste.

” Má tá nó má bhionn gá le tacaíocht choinsiasa a chur ins an dlí in Éirinn, is faoi Muinntear na H-Éireann a bheas an cúram sin, agus is in Éirinn a chaithfidh na dlíthe agus na polasaithe a bheith déanta-chomh fada is a bhaineann siad le saol na H-Éireann”.

Tá an pléadáil seo ar fáil on Website.

 

All-Party Committee receives plea for freedom of conscience

Protection of Conscience Project

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has  received a written submission from Protection of Conscience Project on the need for laws to protect health care workers and others from coercion and discrimination.

Project Administrator Sean Murphy noted that the focus of the submission was different from that of the recent Committee hearings. “This submission is not about abortion,” he wrote, “but  about freedom of conscience in relation to morally controversial medical       procedures.”

“Unfortunately,” he  explained, “discussions about such procedures have not always been accompanied by sufficient reflection about their impact on those who object to them for reasons of conscience.”

Mr. Murphy observed that when the procedure in question is objectionable to large numbers of people, it is usually assumed that no one would be forced to participate in it. The submission cites a number of cases to make the point that, in the long run, this is not the case.

The Project does not recommend specific measures, leaving such questions for the consideration of the Committee: “If  there is or will be a need for protection of conscience legislation in Ireland, that need will have to be articulated by Irish citizens, and laws and policies framed according to the circumstances prevailing in Ireland.”

The submission to the Committee is available on-line through the Project Website.

 

Project Submission to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution

 Ireland

(19 June, 2000)

  • Background | In 2000, a parliamentary committee in Ireland held hearings into the possibilty of legalizing abortion in the country.  One of the physicians who testified stated that most obstetricians-gynaecologists would refuse to participate in the procedure. Project Submission