ISSUES
: Abortion
Chapter 2: Abortion debate
21
Midwives lose case over right to refuse
to supervise terminations
By Steve Ford
T
wo Catholic midwives have
been told they do not have the
right to avoid supervising other
nurses involved in caring for patients
having pregnancy terminations.
As conscientious objectors on
religious grounds, Mary Doogan
and Connie Wood had challenged
whether their health board could
require them to delegate, supervise
and support staff who were involved
in carrying out terminations.
The Supreme Court in London
yesterday ruled against the pair, who
had previously won an appeal case
in Scotland over their role as labour
ward co-ordinators at the Southern
General Hospital in Glasgow.
The Royal College of Midwives (RCM)
described the new ruling a “sensible
decision” that would bring “clarity”
to health professionals in similar
situations.
Gillian Smith, RCM director for
Scotland, said: “The ruling gives
extensive definition to complex
clinical and other situations, in regard
to whether conscientious objection
applies or not. Midwives and other
clinicians will benefit from this ruling’s
clarity.”
The two midwives believed their
right to conscientious objection was
breached by being asked to answer
telephone calls to book women
in and delegate or supervise staff
providing terminations to women
primarily ending a pregnancy after a
diagnosis of foetal anomaly.
A Scottish court ruled in 2013 that
Ms Doogan and Ms Wood should
indeed have legal protection from
such tasks.
However, their employer NHS Greater
Glasgow and Clyde appealed, saying
the right to abstain should only extend
to treatment ending a pregnancy.
The case centred on interpretation
of the 1967 Abortion Act, which
includes a clause allowing healthcare
professionals to refuse to participate
in abortion care, provided it is not an
emergency.
The Supreme Court judges said
parliament was likely to have
envisaged that right to refuse as
being restricted to “actually taking
part”.
Lady Hale, deputy president of the
court, explained this by saying that
MPs would not have viewed it as
including managers, administrators,
caterers or cleaners involved in
running the service.
“The managerial and supervisory
tasks carried out by the labour
ward co-ordinators are closer to
these roles than they are to the role
of providing the treatment which
brings about the termination of the
pregnancy,” she said.
“
‘Participate’ in my view means
taking part in a ‘hands-on’
capacity,” she stated.
The RCM and British Pregnancy
Advisory Service welcomed the
judgement, which they described
as a “landmark”.
They warned that the previous
ruling would have allowed for a
widely expanded interpretation of
conscientious objection that could
have “seriously jeopardised” care in
hospitals around the UK.
Such a “broad and unprecedented”
interpretation of conscientious
objection would effectively have
enabled a “tiny number of staff
opposed to abortion to make
women’s care undeliverable in
many NHS settings,” they argued.
18 December 2014
Ö
The above information is
reprinted with kind permission
from
Nursing Times
. Please
visit
for
further information.
© Nursing Times 2016
