Protection of Conscience Project News

Scandal of the doctors who were let off after approving abortions for women they’d never even met

67 doctors were identified in an investigation by NHS watchdog

Care Quality Commission said they illegally signed blank abortion forms

But none of them will be brought before a fitness to practise hearing

Daily Mail

Simon Caldwell

Dozens of doctors found to be signing off abortions for women they had never met will not face any disciplinary action, it was revealed yesterday.

The 67 doctors were identified in an investigation by NHS watchdog the Care Quality Commission as having illegally signed blank abortion forms, which should be filled in only once they have a thorough understanding of a woman’s circumstances.

One of the doctors had signed so many blank forms that they were still being used by the abortion clinic four years after he left.

All 67 were referred to the General Medical Council but a Freedom of Information request has now established that none of them will be brought before a fitness to practise hearing, where they could be disciplined, suspended, or struck off.

The GMC has also refused to pass the names to the police, even though the offence can merit a jail sentence. [Full Text]

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]

Washington State hospitals identify policies on access to health care

The Washington State Department of Health has posted a web page that lists all of the hospitals in the state, together with their policies on admission, non-discrimination, end of life care, and reproductive health care. The page makes it possible for those seeking morally contested procedures to locate hospitals willing to provide them, while allowing hospitals that do not provide them to provide notice of that fact. This should help to minimize inconvenience and conflict.

Refusals of vaccinations in Australia

A controversy has developed in Queensland, Australia, over the refusal of some parents to have their children vaccinated. Although media reports refer to “conscientious objection,” it appears that the term is being applied much more broadly to encompass those who refuse vaccinations because they are concerned about side effects or doubtful about their efficacy. Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg told a reporter, “I think the whole issue of conscientious objection has been abused and misused and really we are dealing here with people who are vaccine refusers.” [news.com.au]

Supreme Court of the Philippines

The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012

Opinions supporting freedom of conscience

Introduction:

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]