Spain violates conscientious freedom of medical practitioners

Public hearing at the Council of Europe

News Release

European Center for Law and Justice

(Strasbourg, France) – On June 22, 2011, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) organized a public hearing at the Council of Europe, entitled “Spain: Violations of Medical Practitioner’s Freedom of Conscience”. It was conducted with the Spanish Defense Association of Conscientious Objection (ANDOC) and with the support of the European’s People’s Party.

During this hearing, the ANDOC and ECLJ have launched a comprehensive report detailing, with individual examples, the structural and systemic violations of freedom of conscience for healthcare professionals in Spain, and in particular their right to conscientious objection. The right to conscientious objection is founded on the principle that no one shall be forced to threaten someone’s life. Any attack on human life, when permitted by law, can be only performed voluntarily.

Based on this report, a number of parliamentarians from various national and political parties lead by Luca Volontè and Blanca Fernandez, have addressed a “Written question to the Committee of Ministers” urging this Committee, composed of the Representatives of the 47 Council of Europe Member States, to take action in order to ensure respect for doctors, healthcare and administrative personnel, as well as hospitals and institutions’ right to conscientious objection in compliance with European and international regulation. In the following months, the Committee of Ministers will have to agree on a common written response to the Parliamentary Assembly addressing this specific problem.

In Spain, health professionals suffer structural and systemic violations of their rights. Doctors, nurses, and other medical staff that object to performing or assisting with abortion procedures are coerced and suffer career-crippling sanctions or are legally prosecuted for attempting to exercise this fundamental right, which is recognized by both European and international law.

In particular, they are prevented from exercising their freedom of conscience through the following practices:

  • Submission of a fundamental right to administrative authorization: In order to exercise their fundamental right, a conscientious objector must request an authorization from the administration in advance and in writing.
  • Creation of a registry of conscientious objectors: The above requests are registered in a directory that ranks medical professionals according to their conscience.
  • Creation of a registry of conscientious objectors: The above requests are registered in a directory that ranks medical professionals according to their conscience.
  • Systematic discrimination against conscientious objectors
  • The presence in the directory has negative consequences for a medical professional. Their career advancement is dependent upon the number of abortions performed or prescribed through the “Accreditation Program of Professional Skills.” In Andalusia, recruitment in the health care system is subject to the condition of not being an objector.
  • No recognition of the right to conscientious objection of health care institutions that according to their ideology refuse to practice abortions.

Within this structure, there are also other violations such as:

  • Refusal to register a medical practitioner as an objector;
  • Deprivation of the right to object for the staff responsible for pre-natal diagnosis, nursing and other administrative personnel;
  • In order to prevent conscientious objections, the type of operation or information about a negative opinion from the clinical committee is not communicated to the medical professionals, especially to the anesthesiologists and clinical nurses.

During the hearing, presided by the Spanish parliamentarian and medical doctor, Dr Blanca Fernandez (PPE), has also intervened Dr. Esteban Rodriquez Martin, gynecologist, Prof. José Antonio Diez Fernandez Secretary of the ANDOC, and Dr. Grégor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ.

Dr. Esteban Rodriguez Martin gave his testimony as a gynecologist and victim of the Spanish regulation on abortion and prenatal diagnostic procedures. He explained that he is now before national courts for refusing to take part in the procedure leading to eugenic abortions.

Dr. Esteban Rodriguez Martin underlined that professionals must request advance approval from Spanish administrative authorities to be listed as a “conscientious objector.” Only health care professionals placed on this list of “objectors” are exempt from performing or assisting with abortions, and often, this requirement is not communicated. As a result, if a woman solicits abortion services, health care professionals who object to providing assistance, but are not pre-registered as an “objector,” are legally obligated to either perform the abortion or give a referral-even if doing so would violate their conscience.

José Antonio Diez Fernandez, Professor of Law and Coordinator of ANDOC, presented the national legal framework leading to this structural violation of medical professional’s rights. He noted, inter alia, that those who register as conscientious objectors suffer further negative consequences and are unjustly singled out for voicing their objection. Often career advancement and health care ratings depend on the number of abortion referrals or procedures completed, he noted. Opting to register as an objector has career-stifling effects, because assessment of an objector’s professional skills becomes linked to ideological beliefs and not to the practitioner’s true merit or ability. He also highlighted how administrative authorities will often refuse a practitioner’s attempt to register as an objector. Though the process is supposedly declarative in nature, in practice, health care professionals may be refused to register as objectors for arbitrary criteria.

Dr. Gregor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ, analyzed the situation in regard to the legal obligations of Spain under European and International law.

He recalled in particular the resolution 1763/2010 “On the Right to conscientious objection in the field of health” adopted in October 2010 by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly holding that:

“No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.”

He also commented on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) related to Conscientious objection underlining, in particular, the fact that in numerous decisions since the 1989 Rommelfanger v. Germany ruling (no. 12242/89), the Court has recognized the right of institutions based on a specific ethos, such as religious hospitals, to exercise – on an institutional level – their right of conscientious objection to abortion and other related practices.

Grégor Puppinck also commented on the ECHR’s recent ruling in the case R.R. v. Poland (no. 27617/04) of May 26, 2011. In this case, the Court asserted that if a State decides to legalize abortion, it is then “obliged to organise the health services system in such a way as to ensure that an effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals in the professional context does not prevent patients from obtaining access to services to which they are entitled under the applicable legislation.” Two aspects of this ruling are of particular interest: first, it expresses the right to an “effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals in the professional context”, and second, it does not say that the access to abortion should be ensured at the expense of the fundamental rights of health professionals, but it say, however, that the State has to respect both.

Dr Puppinck concluded that in this regard, it is clear that the Spanish regulation does not respect both the individual and institutional right not to take part in an abortion process.

The ECLJ thoroughly supports ANDOC’s efforts to draw attention to this important issue. The right to conscientious objection must be respected. Rather than punishing health care professionals for exercising this right, Spanish authorities must comply with European and international standards to protect this right from the structural and systematic violations that conscientious objectors in Spain are experiencing today.

Related documents:

CoE PACE Resolution 1763 (2010) on “The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care”

Written question to the Committee of Ministers on the violations of the right to conscientious objection in lawful medical in Spain. English | Spanish

ANDOC Informe sobre vulneraciones al derecho de objeción de conciencia de los profesionales de la sanidad pública en España.

2011 ECLJ Memorandum on the Proposed Pace’s Resolution on “Women’s Access to Lawful Medical Care: The Problem of Unregulated Use uf Conscientious Objection”. September 2010. English | Spanish


The European Centre for Law and Justice is an international, Non-Governmental Organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights in Europe and worldwide. The ECLJ holds special Consultative Status before the United Nations/ECOSOC since 2007.

The ECLJ engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation. The ECLJ advocates in particular the protection of religious freedoms and the dignity of the person with the European Court of Human Rights and the other mechanisms afforded by the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and others.

AULA Calls for strong conscience clause protection for medical professionals

“No longer should the civil rights of medical professionals be held hostage to political interests,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

NEWS RELEASE

Americans United for Life

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Americans United for Life president and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest noted that the Obama Administration had rescinded almost all of the regulation protecting conscience rights for medical professionals – except the provision to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.

“AUL predicted that the rights of conscience of medical professionals could be violated without stronger protections,” said Dr. Yoest. “This must come to an end. No longer should the civil rights of medical professionals be held hostage to political interests.” She continued: “Today the Obama Administration acknowledged that it is a civil right not to participate in an abortion, but in the same breath weakened federal regulations designed to protect that right. This underscores the necessity for Congressional action; health care providers must have an effective means to enforce their rights written in the law. The protection of the basic civil right to provide care without participating in life-destructive activities must not be dependent on the whims of an Administration that has made expanding abortion central to its mission.”

The Obama Administration received more than 300,000 comments when it announced in 2009 that it intended to rescind regulations enacted under the Bush Administration to uphold federal conscience protection laws. Nearly two-thirds of those comments expressed opposition to rescinding the conscience-protecting regulations.

For more information or interviews, contact Kristi Hamrick press@aul.org

USCCB Finds Weakening of Health Care Conscience Rule a ‘Disappointment’

Affirms Some Positive Elements

USCCB News Release 11-036
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 18, 2011

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

WASHINGTON (February 18, 2011)—The Obama administration’s final rule rescinding important elements of a federal regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers is a disappointment, but there are also reasons for hope, said Deirdre McQuade of the Pro-Life Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“The Administration’s action today is cause for disappointment, but also offers reasons for hope regarding an emerging consensus in Washington on the need for clear conscience protections for health care providers,” said McQuade.

“It is very disappointing that the Administration has chosen to eliminate much of the existing regulation on conscience issued in December 2008. Among other things, the final rule issued today eliminates important clarifications that would have helped in interpreting and enforcing longstanding federal statutes protecting the conscience rights of health care providers. It also eliminates a regulatory requirement that recipients of federal funds certify compliance with those statutes.

“However, it is welcome news that the Administration says it will take initiative to increase awareness of the conscience statutes, work to ensure compliance with them, and require that government grants make clear that compliance is required. We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure that these endeavors are carried out, so providers receive the full conscience protection they are due.

“We also hope that the Administration will place its full support behind efforts in Congress to clarify conscience protections and make them more secure, by endorsing such initiatives as the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358), the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361).”

  • Past USCCB letters supporting the Bush administration regulation, and opposing efforts to rescind it.

CMA Physicians, former HHS Asst. Secretary decry Obama administration’s regulatory action on conscience and discrimination.

NEWS RELEASE

Christian Medical Association

Washington, DC, February 18, 2011 — The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) today protested the decision of the Obama administration to weaken the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care.

Dr. J. Scott Ries, a board-certified family physician and CMA’s vice president for Campus & Community Ministries, said, “The administration has made changes in a vital civil rights regulation without evidence or justification. The administration presented no evidence of any problems in healthcare access, prescriptions or procedures that have occurred in the two years since the original regulation’s enactment that would justify any change in this protective regulation.

“The administration, for example, contends that a rule change is necessary to protect access to contraception, but absolutely no evidence is presented to justify any such concern. In the process, the administration blatantly ignores the scientific evidence that certain controversial prescriptions that abortion advocates promote as contraception are actually potential abortifacients, ending the life of a living, developing human embryo. This is a critical concern for pro-life patients, healthcare professionals and institutions.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated in 2008 in its final rule, “We have found no evidence that these regulations will create new barriers in accessing contraception unless those contraceptives are currently delivered over the religious or moral objections of the provider in such programs or research activities.”

Dr. Ries added, “The Obama administration’s regulatory action today diminishes the civil rights that protect conscientious physicians and other healthcare professionals against discrimination. Any weakening of protections against discrimination against life-affirming healthcare professionals ultimately threatens to severely worsen patient access to health care.

“Losing conscientious healthcare professionals and faith-based institutions to discrimination and job loss especially imperils the poor and patients in medically underserved areas. We are already facing critical shortages of primary care physicians, and the Obama administration’s decision now threatens to make the situation far worse for patients across the country who depend on faith-based health care.”

National survey results show that over nine of ten faith-based physicians, who are among the most likely to be serving the poor and those in medically underserved areas, indicate they would rather leave the profession if denied the ability to practice medicine according to conscientiously held ethical standards. Survey results also indicate that 20% of faith-based medical students say they are “not pursuing a career in Obstetrics or Gynecology” because of perceived discrimination and coercion in that field.

Dr. Ries added, “Stories told to me by medical students across the country indicate that the threat of being forced to participate in abortion procedures and violate their moral integrity is enough to steer them in the opposite direction. That means even fewer physicians for women in the future in this specialty that is already facing critical shortages.

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Joxel Garcia noted, “Especially in physician shortage states such as Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Delaware, losing just one physician can erase healthcare access for thousands of patients.

“Pushing conscientious physicians out of medicine is a significant step toward a healthcare system controlled by the state that moves away from the ethical roots of medicine. In the new governmental utilitarian model, the ‘common good’ defined by the state supersedes any moral, religious or ethical principle such as embodied in the Hippocratic Oath, which has protected patients for millennia.”

As the second-in-command under Sec. Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dr. Garcia oversaw the development and implementation of the conscience regulation and continues to work closely with the CMA and others to protect conscience rights. He currently serves as President and Dean at the Ponce School of Medicine & Health Sciences, where CMA provides a medical student ministry, as it does on over 90 percent of the nation’s medical and dental school campuses.

Dr. Ries’ clinical career has included faculty appointments at Indiana University School of Medicine and Butler University; he has also served as medical consultant to NBC, CBS, FOX and ABC network affiliates.