Category: Procedures & Services

Protection of conscience provision in new Tasmanian abortion law

The Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013 passed the Tasmanian  Legislative Council 9-5 on 21 November [ The Examiner] and received Royal Assent today.  Abortions after 16 weeks will require the approval of two physicians.  The new Act includes a protection of conscience provision that exempts those who object to the procedure from participating in it, except when necessary to save the life of a woman or prevent serious physical injury.  There is no requirement for referral, but an objecting physician must provide a woman “seeking a termination or advice regarding the full range of pregnancy options” a “list of prescribed health services” from which she may seek advice.  Since, subject to the content of the list, this does not seem to be the equivalent of referral for abortion, the requirement may not be problematic for those concerned about indirect moral complicity.

What is not clear is whether or not the Act actually prohibits an objecting physician from providing information or advice about pregnancy options beyond the “prescribed” list.  Section 7(4) states that an objecting physician may continue to “provide treatment, advice or counselling, in respect of matters other than a termination or advice regarding the full range of pregnancy options” (emphasis added) which could be taken to imply that an objecting physician is not permitted to offer a woman anything other than the prescribed list.

 

Protection of conscience provision in Massachusetts assisted suicide bill

House Bill 1998 (2013)

An Act affirming a terminally ill patient’s right to compassionate aid in dying

Protection of conscience provisions are included in a bill to
legalize assisted suicide in Massachusetts for residents who are at least 18
years old and diagnosed with a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six
months or less.  It is not clear from the text of the statute whether or
not an objector is exempt from all parts of the assisted suicide process [per
Section 4(b)ii], or only from the requirement to actually provide the lethal
medication [per Section 4(1)].  Similarly, it is not clear whether or not
an objector is required to refer or otherwise assist a patient to find someone
who will provide a lethal prescription; Section 4(b)iv appears to imply an
expectation of referral or assistance.

Catholic Archdiocese of New York wins injunction

A federal court in New York has awarded the Catholic Archdiocese of New York a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the contentious federal regulation that requires objecting employers to pay for health insurance for contraception and surgical sterilization.  The federal government can appeal the ruling. [New York Times]

French public panel recommends legalization of euthanasia

A panel of 18 people deemed representative of society, appointed by the French national ethics committee had decided that euthanasia/assisted suicide is a “legitimate right” for the dying or terminally ill.  The ethics committee had previously advised the French government against legalizing the procedures because of concern that it would be “dangerous” for society.   French President Francois Hollande is reported to be planning to bring forward a bill. [Reuters]