Tag: human rights

Sweden discriminates against conscientious objection

News Release

Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe

Sweden lacks respect both for the fundamental freedom of conscience laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights and for the democratic proceedings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. On 7 March the FAFCE filed a collective complaint against Sweden on the grounds of lack of respect for articles 11 (right to protection of health) and E (Non-Discrimination) of the European Social Charter.

On 7 October 2010 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted resolution (1763(2010)) The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care, a text that invites member States to develop comprehensive and clear regulations that define and regulate conscientious objection with regard to health and medical services.

The Swedish Parliament voted its own initiative resolution against this text in May 2011, despite the fact that the resolution was adopted according to the democratic process that regulates all decisions taken at the Council of Europe. By not respecting this fundamental right for any citizen across Europe, Sweden actually breaches the very principles that are the foundation of the Council of Europe: Human Rights, Rule of Law and Democracy:

“The Report of Christine McCafferty, “Women’s access to lawful medical care: the problem of unregulated use of conscientious objection”, that preceded the Resolution 1763, caused a debate in Sweden about freedom of conscience for health care workers. The Swedish standing Committee has remained negative to the content of Resolution 1763 and the Swedish delegation has been directed by the Swedish Government to take action to accomplish a “change” of this resolution.

On 11 May, 2011, the Swedish Parliament debated the report, Resolution 1763 and its recommendations after a report from the Foreign Affairs Committee. The prospect that medical professionals and health care workers might exercise freedom of conscience initiated a debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee Report recommended that the Parliament should advise the Government to be “critical of the content of Resolution 1763” and consider “that the delegation should work to bring about a change in the nature of this resolution.” [1]The Left Party added a “reservation” suggesting that the Parliament ask for the abrogation of Resolution 1763. The Sweden Democrats, in contrast, expressed support for the Resolution in a separate reservation. The Swedish Parliament accepted the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Sweden thus formally set itself against freedom of conscience for health care workers and against the goals of Article 11 of the European Social Charter.” (FAFCE’s collective complaint).

The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe, FAFCE, a member of the INGO Conference of the Council of Europe and deeply attached to the values promoted by the latter has paid close attention since to the implementation of the resolution.

FAFCE’s President Antoine Renard stresses that “The right to conscientious objection is a safeguard for all of us, it provides a possibility for medical staff to enlighten their work by their conscience in relation to each one of their patients. The importance of conscience in the medical field grows every day as technology moves forward and medical staff is faced with ever more complicated decisions to make. Practising medicine is a human and moral activity, not just a technical one, as Hippocrates pointed this out centuries before our time.”

Considering that freedom of conscience is a fundamental right laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and that its restriction is contrary to both these legal instruments and to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the FAFCE has been very concerned with Sweden’s lack of respect for the principles set forth by the resolution, which have still not been implemented there.

Mr Renard explains that this is why the FAFCE has filed a collective complaint against Sweden: “We hope that our collective complaint against Sweden will raise international awareness of this lack of respect for the democratic procedure and for the fundamental right to freedom of conscience, there is no reason that Swedish medical staff should be deprived of a right laid down by several European human rights instruments”.

Contact Maria Hildingsson: +32 4 70 20 39 18 or info@fafce.org

 

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.”

UN Population Fund makes rights claims

The U.N. Population Fund’s annual report claims that access to birth control is a human right.  The report has no legal significance, but activists like the American based Center for Reproductive Rights have pursued a strategy of seeking such declarations, or “soft norms,” in the hope that they will eventually lead to binding “harde norms” that can be enforced against governments and objecting health care workers. (See Secret Memos Reveal Worldwide Pro-Abortion Legal Strategy)

 

Abortion described as a “right”

In a commentary on CBC Radio, Canada’s publicly funded state broadcaster, Prince Edward Island University professor Richard Raiswell  asserted that “abortion is a medically necessary, essential health care service” and insisted that all Canadian women have a “right” to the service.  Since the province does not provide abortion on the island, Raiswell argues that women who have to leave the island to obtain the procedure “are being denied access to safe medical care.”  He suggested that that is illegal. [CBC Radio]

A correction and qualifications

Letter to the Editor
The BC Catholic
Vancouver, B.C. Canada

20 February, 2012

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

A correction and some qualifications are in order with respect to the article by Deborah Gyapong about the contraception insurance controversy in the United States (“A Canadian debate over contraception is unlikely,” BC Catholic, 20 February, 2012).

In the first place, Mr. Roche of the Catholic Health Association of Canada is mistaken in his assertion that Catholic hospitals in Canada cannot be compelled to do things contrary to Catholic teaching. In 2006, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, operated by the Saskatchewan Catholic Health Association, decided to stop doing contraceptive sterilizations. Public protests resulted, and a woman denied a tubal ligation filed a human rights complaint. In June, 2007, St. Elizabeth’s was transferred to the Saskatoon Health Region and re-named the Humboldt District Hospital. Three months later, the Saskatchewan Catholic Health Corporation agreed to pay almost $8,000.00 to the complainant in the human rights action to settle the case.1 It would be most unwise to think that this kind of thing could not happen again.

Concerning the situation in the United States, it is true that the Catholic bishops, in a remarkable display of unanimity, have been vocal in protesting the demand to provide insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives and potentially embryocidal or abortifacient drugs or devices. Many of them have said that they will refuse to comply with the law. It does not appear that they share Mr. Roche’s view that an emphasis on Catholic identity may be counterproductive with respect to the mission of Catholic health care. Nor do they seem to think that Catholic identity and Catholic mission are in conflict with each other, though they may well be in conflict with dominant social norms – as the example of what used to be St. Elizabeth’s Hospital demonstrates.

The prominence of the Catholic response notwithstanding, this is not a ‘Catholic’ issue. Strong protests have also been made by Jewish groups, Southern Baptists, Lutherans and Evangelical Christians. Colorado Christian University, a non-Catholic institution, filed suit months ago against the U.S.  federal government because of this mandate.2 Two more lawsuits have just been filed by Southern Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian colleges.3 And former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. recently declared that the response to the Obama administration’s mandate reminded him of President John F. Kennedy’s statement to the people of Berlin after the erection of the Berlin Wall: “Ich bin ein Berliner” (I am a Berliner). Huckabee, a Baptist , said, “In many ways, thanks to President Obama, we’re all Catholics now.”4

Testifying before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik warned that “not only does the new regulation threaten religious liberty in the narrow sense, in requiring Catholic communities to violate their religious tenets, but also the administration impedes religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to be religious.”5

So this is not a ‘Catholic’ issue. Nor is it about women, or health, or birth control or contraception, as Dr. Laura Champion told the same committee. As the Director of Health Services at Calvin College in Michigan, she explained that the College has no objections to contraception, but she was emphatic that the morning after pill is not the same as cancer screening or vaccinations. “Pregnancy is not a disease,” she said. “This is a premise that I reject both religiously and medically.”6

Finally, the BC Catholic story states that the Catholic Health Association of the United States “decided on ‘a cautious acceptance’ of the compromise.” However, the actual wording of the newly published regulation is exactly the same as the wording that launched the firestorm of protest in late January.7 The administration’s promises have no legal significance, and, in any case, will not be fulfilled before the November presidential election. The description of the scheme as a ‘compromise’ thus seems premature.

Notes:

1.  CBC News, 13 September, 2007, “Woman given settlement after being denied tubal ligation.”(Accessed 2012-02-20)

2.  To see a graphic illustration of the resistance to the HHS mandate, see the interactive map.

3.  Alliance Defence Fund news releases, 20 February, 2012 : “ADF, Louisianna College challenge Obama Mandate“; “ADF, Geneva College to reveal lawsuit against Obama mandate Tuesday” (Accessed 2012-02-20)

4 “Mike Huckabee’s Full Speech at CPAC 2012.” ABC News, 10 February, 2012 (Accessed 2012-02-20)

5.   Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience? US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,16 February, 2012: Testimony of Rabbi Meir Soloveichik

6.  Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience? US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,16 February, 2012: Testimony of Laura Champion, MD.

7.  PART 147—Health Insurance Reform Requirements for the Group and Individual Health Insurance Markets § 147.130 Coverage of preventive health services.