Tag: Queensland

Bill Undermines Conscientious Objection to VAD

CQ Today

Duncan Evans

Conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying (VAD) may not be an option for Queenslanders if the state government’s bill to legalise VAD is passed in its present form, a leading healthcare provider has warned.

In a media statement released last week, Mater Board Chair Francis Sullivan AO said the proposed legislation would force Mater to allow assisted dying to take place at its facilities in direct contradiction to the moral ethos upon which the healthcare provider delivers patient care to Queenslanders.

“The proposed law will also compel Mater and other not-for-profit providers to allow doctors who are not known to our hospitals to enter our facilities to administer lethal doses to our patients,” Mr Sullivan said. . . . continue reading

Conscientious objection obstacle to safe terminations: Qld Government

Concerns have been raised that increasing numbers of doctors with objections to abortion may threaten a woman’s ability to seek a termination

NewsGP

The head of the State Government’s healthcare improvement agency, Clinical Excellence Queensland, recently wrote to the RACGP calling for better management of conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy.

But the RACGP [Royal Australian College of General Practitioners] maintained its view that conscientious objection is necessary. . . [Full text]

Queensland demands practitioners facilitate abortion by referral

Sean Murphy*

The Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 came into effect in Queensland, Australia, today.

The bill permits abortion up to 22 weeks gestation for any reason; no medical indications are required (Section 5).  Abortion after 22 weeks gestation may be performed for any reason that two practitioners find acceptable (Section6(1)a), including current and future “social circumstances” (6(2)b).

The bill requires disclosure of objections to abortion by a practitioner when asked by someone (not necessarily a patient) to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion on a woman, to make a decision about whether an abortion should be provided for a woman who is over 22 weeks pregnant (Section 6), or to advise about the performance of an abortion on a woman.

When a woman wants an abortion or advice about an abortion for herself, an objecting practitioner is required to refer or transfer the  care of the woman to someone or an agency willing to provide it (Section 3). 

Practitioners who object to abortion in principle and those who object in particular cases are often unwilling to facilitate the procedure by referral, transfers of care or other means because they believe that this makes them parties to or complicit in an immoral act.  Thus, the provision for conscientious objection in the bill actually suppresses the exercise of freedom of conscience by these practitioners.

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]