Court of Sessions |
|
|
Two senior midwives with more than 20 years experience delivering babies, have been told by a court that they must supervise abortions. A judgment was handed down on 29 February in the case of Miss Mary Doogan and Mrs Connie Wood from Glasgow who both have a conscientious objection to abortion. Judge Lady Smith, sitting in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, ruled that the senior midwives' role is not covered by the conscience clause in the Abortion Act.
The case arose when the hospital demanded that all senior midwives must take responsibility for overseeing mid-term and late term abortions. Since 2008 the hospital has insisted that these abortions, mostly for suspected disability in the foetus, must be conducted on the labour ward, rather than the gynaecology ward where most early abortions are performed.
The midwives argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions. They argued that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions and with the right to opt-out that is protected in the 1967 Abortion Act.
The case was subject of a protracted grievance procedure before coming to court in January.
The late abortion procedure, called "Medical Termination of Pregnancy" or MTOP, entails the mother being given drugs to induce labour, and then having to go through labour and deliver the baby. In more advanced pregnancies the baby is killed first by an ultrasound-guided lethal injection while still in the womb.
The hospital's labour ward delivers 6000 babies every year, but is also required to provide about 1-3 MTOPs each week - a number which has increased since a special unit for diagnosing disability in the womb was transferred to the Southern General Hospital in January 2010.
Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, in whose Archdiocese, the Southern General Hospital is located, said: “I view this judgement with deep concern. I wish to put on record my admiration for the courage of the midwives who have, at very great cost to themselves, fought to uphold the right to follow one’s conscience. It is fundamental to the functioning of society that all citizens act in accordance with an informed conscience.
“Any law or judgement which fails to recognise this contradicts that most basic freedom and duty which we all have as human beings, namely to follow our conscience and act accordingly.
“Any assault on this principle undermines the very basis of the law itself and society’s moral cohesion, which the law should seek to guarantee."
Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) commented: "We are very disappointed by the judgment. SPUC has supported the midwives in bringing their case, and will now be considering their further legal options with them."
Neil Addison, director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said: “The case is yet another example of the way in which the UK Courts are interpreting s9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Religion) in the most limited and restrictive way possible.
“The courts have not hesitated to use the convention to protect murderous terrorists but have refused to use it two midwives who do not want to kill unborn children.
“What is more surprising is the extremely restrictive interpretation the judge has put on the Conscientious Objection clause in s4 of the Abortion Act.
“As the judge has interpreted it, believing Catholics, Muslims and others will ever be able to take any form of supervisory or management role as midwives or nurses unless they are willing to be complicit in the provision of abortions.”
“This decision is in stark contrast to recent decisions in the United States’ courts which have applied the American First Amendment to protect the conscience rights of pharmacists who refused to dispense the morning-after pill.”
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19953 |
|
Comments