Category: Procedures & Services

Court hears appeal of midwives ordered to participate in abortion services

A panel of three judges in Edinburgh is hearing arguments in an appeal by two midwives who were ordered to supervise provision of abortion in the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde region.  A lower court ruled that the protection of conscience provision in the 1967 Abortion Act did not apply to them.  [BBC] The case turns upon the definition of “participation,” which is not set out in the Act.

 

 

 

Facebook abortion ads: no need for coerced referrals

Sean Murphy*

The  Life Issues Institute reports that ads are being run on Facebook in the United Kingdom that offer women assistance in finding nearby abortion facilities, including late-term abortion specialists.  The ads demonstrate that there is no need to force objecting health care workers to facilitate abortion by referral or by providing abortionist contact information, as access to abortion can be easily facilitated by popular social media and websites.

Irish Archbishops challenged on claims of conscience about abortion

Archbishops are absolutely wrong about conscience

The Irish Times
27 December, 2012

Desmond M. Clarke

OPINION: Catholic bishops who attribute an absolute value to conscience are trying to force others to accept their position on abortion.

The Catholic archbishops of Armagh, Dublin, Cashel and Emly, and Tuam released a public statement on December 18th that included this general principle: “No one has the right to force or coerce someone to act against their conscience. Respect for this right is the very foundation of a free, civilised and democratic society.”

I do not think they believe that. Nor do I.

Conscience could mean many things but it is usually understood as referring to the judgment of an individual about significant moral and religious matters. Unfortunately it is possible for someone to decide in “their conscience” that politically-motivated murder is acceptable in some circumstances, and the archbishops presumably do not mean the conscience of a murderer obliges a democratic state not to interfere in their behaviour, no matter how well-intentioned it may be. . . [Read on]

“Normalisation of cruelty” and the ‘ethics of the profession’

Sean Murphy*

A court in the United Kingdom has awarded £410,000 ($663,000) in damages to 38 plaintiff families for an extraordinary cataloque of neglect, abandonment and abuse at the National Health Service’s Alexandra Hospital in Redditch, England.  The incidents occurred between 2002 and 2009.  Britain’s Health Secretary said that the case illustrates “the normailisation of cruelty.”  One elderly patient was left unwashed for 11 weeks and another was starved to death. [RTE Question More; The Telegraph]

Court rules against Costa Rican ban on in vitro fertilization

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Costa Rican law prohibiting in vitro fertilization violates the American Convention on Human Rights(Murillo  et al. v. Costa Rica.  The Costa Rican law is intended to protect human life, including embryonic ife, from the moment of conception, which is guaranteed by the Convention.  A preliminary commentary by Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. indicates that the court “elevated  secondary rights – such as the right to privacy, a right to personal
autonomy, and a right to sexual and reproductive health – above the right to
life.”