October-December, 2004
December
The Center For Reproductive Rights (CRR) is assisting in the attack against
the Costa Rican ban on in vitro fertilization launched by ten
infertile Costa Rican couples. The case will be heard by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which can issue recommendations. The
case may move to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights if the
recommendations are not followed. (CFAM
Friday Fax, December 31, 2004, Volume 8, Number 2)[See also
Secret Memos Reveal Worldwide Pro-Abortion Legal Strategy ;
CRR Secret Strategy] The notion that countries or institutions ought to
be compelled to provide procedures that they deem morally objectionable
appears to be a fundamental tenet of this so-called 'pro-choice'
organization.
The UN Human Rights Committee has not only suggested that Poland ought to
liberalize its abortion laws, but has told the country that it should
"track" doctors who refuse to perform abortions, as if they are guilty of
some sort of crime or misconduct that warrants state surveillance. (CFAM,
Friday Fax, Vol. 8, No. 1) [UN
Report] [Report
Extract)
Dr. Stephen Carrol of Ireland's National Maternity Hospital has asked for
universal screening of pregnant women to identify infants in utero
who have Down's syndrome. Such screening is normally done only for the
purpose of aborting the affected infants, something that would be
problematic in Ireland, where abortion is illegal. Further, evidence before
a parliamentary committee in 2000 indicated that most obstetricians in the
country would refuse to participate in abortion (Conscientious
Objection in Ireland (May, 2000)). Dr. Carrol's suggestion does not
appear to have taken the issue of conscientious objection into account.
The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a
legal brief requesting permission to file an amici curiae brief
in the civil suit launched to overthrow the Hyde-Weldon amendment, a
recently enacted protection of conscience measure. [See
Pro-choice' groups attack freedom to choose;
Attack on freedom of conscience in US House of Representatives]
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a
woman who claimed that she would have aborted her son had she been made
aware that most of his brain was missing. Associate Justice E.C. Burnett
commented that it is impossible to compare being born with a handicap to not
being born at all; "It is simply beyond the human experience." 27 American
states do not recognize "wrongful life" suits. The issue is of concern to
health care workers who do not wish to participate in eugenic screening to
identify and kill the handicapped in utero.
Dr Eduard Verhagen of Groningen Hospital and Dr Louis Kollée of Radboud
University Medical Centre in the Netherlands want the government to
regularize the killing of handicapped newborn babies by providing guidelines
that will protect physicians from murder charges. [The Guardian, 21
December. 2004] Admissions that the killing of handicapped infants is being
practised even though it is illegal suggests the probability that some
health care workers may face conflicts of conscience if required to
participate or facilitate the procedure.
The House of Commons has passed the government's Mental Capacity Bill
despite concerns that it will permit euthanasia by withdrawal of necessary
treatment or food and fluids. The bill does not include protection of
conscience provisions.
Dr. Eduard Verhagen, speaking for the Groningen Academic Hospital in the
Netherlands, has asserted that euthanasia of infants is occurring wordlwide,
and that the country's eight teaching hospitals support the request for a
panel to consider guidelines for euthanasia for people with "no free will."
The statement indicates that health care professionals who object to the
practice will face conflicts of conscience, and suggests the need for
protection of conscience legislation.
California Attorney general Bill Lockyer is going to court to ensure
that California can continue to force health care workers and organizations
to participate in procedures to which they object for reasons of conscience.
At issue is the Hyde-Weldon amendment, signed by President Bush on 8
December, 2004. The new law discourages discrimination against health care
providers who do not wish to provide or facilitate abortion. Campaign for
Children and Families, a leading West Coast pro-family organization, is
protesting the lawsuit. The group pointed out the California would not lose
any federal funds if it stopped forcing doctors and nurses to participate in
abortions. [News
Release]
In contrast to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Royal
College of General Practitioners, the General Secretary of the Royal College
of Nursing and the head of science and ethics for the British Medical
Association have warned that legalizing assisted suicide or euthanasia will
threaten the relationship between health care workers and patients. [The
Guardian, 9 December, 2004][Assisted
suicide bill in UK no longer opposed by physicians' groups] The
differences among the professional associations in Britain illustrate the
importance of protection of conscience legislation should the procedures be
legalized.
The Vereeniging Equality Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to
hear the case of a nurse who is suing for constructive dismissal because she
was discriminated against after declining to participate in abortions. The
case is to be referred to the Labour Court in January, 2005. [Business
Day]
Citing documents of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II told US
bishops that "no human activity . . . can be withdrawn from God's dominion,"
a point that sharply contrasts with the popular secularist view that
religious beliefs cannot be permitted to influence public behaviour. The
Pope also emphasized that properly instructed Catholics are bound, in
conscience, by the "authoritative teaching" of the Church. [Text]
A woman from Chesire, England, went to Switzerland for assisted suicide at
the Dignitas facility. She is now dead, and her case is being cited as
another reason for legalizing assisted suicide in Britain. A British court
that revoked an order preventing her husband from taking her there noted
that criminal justice authorities could consider prosecuting him for
assisting in her suicide should he do so. [The Times of London, Scotland on
Sunday, 5 December, 2004]
[Husband may take wife to Switzerland for suicide]
Current Dutch law permits euthanasia only when a competent patient who
is in intractable pain freely and persistently asks to be killed. The Royal
Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) is now seeking guidelines on providing
euthanasia for people unable to make this kind of decision, such as infants
or those with severe disabilities. It has asked the Netherlands Ministry of
Health to form a panel to consider the matter. The request follow disclosure
that Groningen Academic Hospital has been practising infant euthanasia for
some time.[
Read the complete story.]
Groningen Academic Hospital in the Netherlands has admitted that doctors
there have performed euthanasia on four babies with severe disabilities.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Executive Director, Alex Schadenberg,
commented that the babies were killed "not because they are going to die,
but because they are going to live." [The Guardian, 1 December, 2004] [AP]
[LifeSiteNews.com]. The practice suggests the likelihood that conflicts of
conscience will occur among health care workers, especially when it is first
introduced.
November
A law passed by 551 to 548 in France will allow doctors to withdraw
lifesaving medical treatment if requested to do so by patients. Although
this is being called the legalization of 'passive euthanasia,' the
withdrawal of extraordinary medical treatment is not generally considered to
constitute euthanasia. The withdrawal of ordinary treatment, or of
nourishment and hydration, would be considered euthanasia or assisted
suicide by many conscientious objectors. It appears that the new law does
not make this distinction, as it allows health care workers to cause death
by refusing or withdrawing food and fluids. The sole issue for the law being
the will of the patient. [News
item] [[British Medical Journal, 4 December, 2004]
A woman suffering from an incurable brain disease has secured a court ruling
that allows her husband to take her to Switzerland for assisted suicide. The
High Court of London appears to have decided that she should not be
prevented from going to Switzerland for that purpose, but that if her
husband assists her he may face criminal prosecution. The case is likely to
generate more sympathy for the legalization of assisted suicide, with
adverse consequences for objecting health care workers.[News
item]
The firing of conscientious objectors by an Eckerd drug store has led to the
introduction of a bill in the state legislature to prevent further attacks
on freedom of conscience among pharmacists. [Star-Telegram]
The Queen's University Human Rights Office has ruled that students who
object to abortion for religious reasons can re-direct the .85 cents of
their student fees used to support abortion-related campus services to other
recipients. The Office overruled the university's Judicial Committee.
(Kingston, Ontario, Canada)
Lloyds, a large pharmacy chain in the United Kingdom, acknowledges that
pharmacists can refuse to sell medications on moral or religious grounds,
though it claims that the pharmacist must refer the patient to another
pharmacy. The comment was in response to a complaint from a "furious" woman
who was directed elsewhere after a Lloyds pharmacist declined to sell her
the potentially abortifacient morning-after pill on religious grounds. The
woman obtained the drug at a National Health Service walk-in-clinic. Despite
the reference to referral by the objecting pharmacist, it appears that the
referral was made by non-objecting staff, who spoke at length with the woman
and her partner.
Over the objections of his wife, life support will be withdrawn from a
military veteran who signed a 'living will' stating that he would prefer
death to remaining on life support during terminal illness or
incapacitation. His wife testified that he had been watching football and
learning sign language four days earlier, but Orlando Regional Healthcare
insisted that his 'living will' must be followed, and the judge agreed. His
wife said that would be like killing him, illustrating the kind of conflict
that can arise not only between family and medical staff, but among health
care workers involved in a case.
The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), National Organization
for Women (NOW) and Planned Parenthood have issued news releases condemning
the passage of the Hyde-Weldon amendment. The amendment will discourage
state and local authorities from forcing health care workers to provide or
facilitate abortion. [See
Pro-choice' groups attack freedom to choose]
Senator Barbara Boxer of California and other pro-abortion senators will
attempt to repeal the Hyde-Weldon amendment that will prevent agencies from
receiving federal funds if they force objecting health care providers to
perform, pay for or provide insurance coverage for abortions. The amendment,
originally the
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA), passed the House of
Representatives but had not received a Senate vote. It was added to a
Congressional spending bill. It is believed that Boxer and her supporters
will not succeed, either because their bill will not pass or will not be
signed by the President. [
News
item]
A controversial section of the 9/11 Recommendations
Implementation Act was deleted before the bill passed. Critics
charged that it would have authorized US immigration authorities to send
terrorist suspects to countries believed to practise torture. Canadian Maher
Arar, now the subject of a formal inquiry in Canada, alleges he was sent to
Syria by US officials, where he was interrogated, tortured and imprisoned
for a year. He has launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. The
opposition to the practice, described as "outsourcing torture" by one
congressional critic, demonstrates that people understand the principle of
vicarious moral responsibility, which, for many objectors, precludes
referral for what they consider to be morally abhorrent procedures. [Statement]
Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Il.) and Congressman Dave Weldon (R-Fl.) amended a
Congressional spending bill by adding a provision that will deny federal
funding to state and local authorities that force objecting health care
providers to provide, pay for, insure or refer for abortions. The amendment
was originally a stand-alone bill called the Abortion Non-Discrimination
Act (ANDA) that had passed the US House of Representatives but had not
come to a vote in the Senate. The spending bill has passed, and the
protective amendment will come into force when the bill is signed by the
President. Ironically, organizations that purport to be "pro-choice" are
attacking the legislation because it will safeguard freedom of choice among
health care workers. See
Attack on freedom of conscience in US House of Representatives
A suggestion that the House of Commons debate the legalization of assisted
suicide has been made by the Canadian Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler. He
stated that the debate would be a discussion that would not lead to a vote.
His suggestion follows the acquittal of a woman charged for assisted
suicide. Legalization of the procedure would probably have a significant
impact on conscientious objectors in health care.
Luis Sanchez, President of the Medical Federation of Ecuador, said that the
morning after pill must be considered an abortifacient because it can impede
implantation of the early embryo, causing a "micro-abortion." The Federation
has announced that it supports calls for the withdrawal of the drug. The
announcement illustrates the potential for conflicts of conscience among
health care workers, which have already occurred in other jurisdictions.[EWTN]
According to a survey by the Human Sciences Research Council, 70% of
South Africans oppose abortion for financial reasons and 56% oppose it for
eugenic reasons. This suggests that the failure of the government to include
protection of conscience provisions in its abortion legislation, recently
liberalized, is likely to lead to further problems for health care workers.
[All Africa, 15 November, 2004][See
Abortion law amendment likely to impact South African nurses ]
Catholic, Anglican and Muslim leaders in Kenya issued a joint statement
against legalization of abortion, calling it "murder and a grave moral
offence." Supporters of the statement include 29 members of the Kenyan
Catholic Bishops' Conference, Sheikh Hamad Kassim, a Muslim leader, and
Anglican Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi. The strength of the opposition
indicates that significant conflicts of conscience would occur among health
care workers were the procedure to be legalized. [All
Africa] [South
African nurse denied position]
There are public and private health care systems in South Africa, the
private systems serving those who have health insurance or who can afford
the fees for service. DENOSA, the Nurses Union in South Africa, is concerned
that a new law may unreasonably burden nurses and drive them from the public
to the private system. Two thirds of its members are reported to be opposed
to abortion [No
Place for Abortion in African Traditional Life - Some Reflections (2002)].
The new law, passed without debate by the South African National Assembly,
liberalizes the current abortion law (Choice on Termination of Pregnancy
[TOP] Act) by allowing nurses to perform abortions and delegating regulation
of the procedure to provincial health ministers. Calls for protection of
conscience provisions were ignored. The TOP Act was passed without
consideration of the fact that a large majority of South African health care
workers object to abortion for reasons of conscience. A number of problems
have arisen as a result [South
African nurse denied position], and there is now grave concern that
health care who object to abortion will face increasing pressure and
discrimination.
Nairobi gynaecologist-obstetrician, Dr. John Nyamu, charged with 15 counts
of murder following the discovery of the bodies of aborted babies on the
Uhuru Highway, asserts that the prosecution is contrary to his
constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.
Nurses Marion Kibathi and Mercy Mathai are co-accused. Nyamu's supporters
include the chairman of the Kenya Medical Association, Dr Stephen Ochiel. It
is reported that Ochiel issued an order to medical professionals to support
Dr. Nyamu, which would appear to be inconsistent with his appeal to freedom
of conscience. The Kenya Medical Association has become active in favour of
legalized abortion. [Kenyan
medical association wants abortion legalized The case has been delayed
because the prosecution was not ready to proceed. [All
Africa, 11 November, 2004]
Current Moroccan law reflects the Islamic beliefs of its population and
prohibits abortion except to save the life of the mother. The United Nations
Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has ordered Morocco to legalize abortion on
the grounds that the current law is contrary to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Other UN groups have attacked freedom
of conscience in health care, so it appears that compliance with the UNHRC
directive will eventually lead to problems for many health care workers.
'Catholics' for a Free Choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
the Illinois chapter of American Civil Liberties Union and Planned
Parenthood, which are fond of justifying morally controversial activities on
the grounds that everyone should be able to "choose," are angry that federal
workers in 27 counties in Illinois will be able to choose a Catholic health
insurance plan that does not cover contraceptives, sterilization, fertility
treatment, or abortion. Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis offer the
plan through OSF Health Plans.
Apparently in response to the recent acquittal of a woman accused of
assisting suicide (Canadian
woman acquitted of assisting in suicides), Liberal MP Keith Martin, a
physician, has suggested that the Canadian public needs and wants the
legalization of euthanasia, calling for a "national debate on end-of-life
issues."
Dr Alison Elliot, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland, asserts that the issue of euthanasia needs to be re-examined in
light of the belief that God does not want people to suffer unbearably. The
suggestion was welcomed by Member of the Scots Parliament Jeremy Purvis, who
plans to introduce a bill to legalize euthanasia next year and other
pro-euthanasia activists. [The Sunday Herald, 7 November]
The Kenya Medical Association has become active in advocating legalization
of abortion in the country. It organized a pro-abortion workshop attended by
politicians, religious leaders and non-governmental organizations that
issued a call for the law to be changed. Among the proponents of the change
is a former Kenyan attorney general. There is significant opposition to
abortion among the Christian and Muslim populations. [No
Place for Abortion in African Traditional Life - Some Reflections (2002)]
Failure to take that into account in changing the law will cause conflicts
of conscience for many health care workers and lead to the kind of problems
that are now occurring in South Africa. [News
item] [South
African nurse denied position]
73 year old Evelyn Martens, a euthanasia advocate has been acquitted of
assisting in the suicides of two British Columbian women. The jury verdict
appears to reflect the fact that the Crown could not establish beyond
reasonable doubt whether or not Martens actually did anything to assist the
women. Although the case turned on the facts and the evidence, Martens'
supporters responded to the acquittal by calling for legalization of
assisted suicide in Canada. Legalization of the procedure would cause the
same problems for conscientious objectors in Canada that they have
experienced with abortion and contraception. Canada has no protection of
conscience legislation, apart from general guarantees of freedom of
conscience and religion in its Charter of Rights.
A woman who travelled to the United Kingdom for 'selective reduction' -
the abortion of one of two twins who was reported to be 'abnormal' - is
suing the Irish government on the grounds that the Irish ban on abortion
violates provisions in the European Union convention on torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, and respect for private and family life.
The case is unlikely to be heard within the next year. [Times
on Line] Legalization of abortion in Ireland would have a grave impact
on many health care professionals. Most Irish obstetricians are believed to
be unwilling to perform abortions. [See
Conscientious Objection in Ireland (May, 2000)]
October
Mrs Joanne Downs of the African Christian Democratic Party, supported by
Margaret Ambler-Moore of the DA, proposed an amendment to
the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy
Amendment Bill to prevent health care workers from being
"compelled or pressured" to participate in abortions. The amendment was
rejected. [No
Place for Abortion in African Traditional Life - Some Reflections (2002)]
[South
African nurse denied position] [Are
State Doctors in the Western Cape willing to implement the Choice of
Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996? An opinion survey conducted in the
Western Cape in November 1997.]
[South Africa Changes Abortion Law (1996-97)]
Cristina Alarcon,
representing BC Pharmacists for
Conscience, has pointed out that the regulatory establishment allows
pharmacists to decline to provide services because they don't make enough
money, but rejects the idea that they should be free to decline services
that they find morally objectionable. [News
Release] [Project
Report 2001-01]
The organization Christians for Truth is mounting protests
against a bill that will liberalize the country's abortion law by making it
possible for nurses to perform abortions. The organization asserts that
there has been little opportunity for the public to make submissions,
despite polls showing that a majority of citizens were opposed to
abortion, responses indicating a range of opposition from 57% (among whites)
to 74% of black South Africans [See also
No Place for Abortion in African Traditional Life - Some Reflections (2002)].
This suggests that more health care workers will face conflicts of
conscience, a problem that began when the government legalized abortion
without taking into account the fact that a majority of physicians and
nurses were morally opposed to the procedure [South
African nurse denied position]. The proposed bill does not include
protection of conscience provisions, because, according to the Parliamentary
Monitoring Group, it is aimed at "protecting citizens rather than the
personal interests of medical practitioners." The statement implies that
medical practitioners are not citizens, and that freedom of conscience is a
purely 'personal' interest that does not warrant protection by the state. [Are
State Doctors in the Western Cape willing to implement the Choice of
Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996? An opinion survey conducted in the
Western Cape in November 1997.]
[South Africa Changes Abortion Law (1996-97)]
The Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of
Physicians no longer oppose Lord Joffe's Assisted Dying for the Terminally
Ill Bill. The two groups state that they are 'neutral' with respect to the
proposal, though the RCGP said that more 'clarity' was needed. The bill is
still opposed by the British Medical Association. Although the official
position of the two groups is one of 'neutrality,' it clearly indicates that
neither group has principled objections to euthanasia. An RCGP spokesman
suggested that many GP's had moved to an 'agnostic' stance with respect to
assisted suicide. He also wondered "what type of doctor will be expected to
carry out these assisted suicides (emphasis added)." Conscientious objectors
will be subjected to considerable pressure as a result of this kind of
'expectation,' particularly when health care is delivered by the state as a
perceived entitlement. [BBC]
Sister Wilhelmien Magdalena Charles, Chief Professional Nurse at the
Vereeniging Hospital, now the Kopanong Hospital, advised the hospital after
she became a Jehovah's Witness that she did not wish to participate in
abortions. She was compelled to do so despite her protests until Doctors for
Life in South Africa came to her assistance. After returning from maternity
leave in May, 2004, she was not placed on the surgical theatre roster. The
hospital ignored requests from Sister Charles and Doctors for Life to
reinstate her or to give written reasons to justify its position. As a
result of the affronts to her dignity and emotional and psychological
suffering inflicted upon her, Sister Charles finally submitted her
resignation on 30 July, 2004. She has launched a civil suit against the
hospital.has launched a civil action against the hospital and other
authorities. [Details -
South African nurse denied position] [See also
No Place for Abortion in African Traditional Life - Some Reflections (2002)]
[Are
State Doctors in the Western Cape willing to implement the Choice of
Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996? An opinion survey conducted in the
Western Cape in November 1997.]
[South Africa Changes Abortion Law (1996-97)]
Pharmacist Neil Noesen is facing a charge
of professional misconduct for refusing to fill a prescription for
contraceptives at a K-Mart in Menomonie, Wisconsin in 2002. [Wisconsin
pharmacist faces charges for following his conscience]
The US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from a ruling by the
California Supreme Court that Catholic Charities of Sacramento must include
prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan. The court
ruled that it is not a "religious organization," despite the fact that it is
the instrument used by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of California for
charitable work. The Conference had objected to the passage of California's
Women's Contraceptive Equity Act (WCEA) in 2000 because the Act's definition
of 'religious employer' was too narrow to protect Catholic hospitals and
universities. The Act required that an organization exist to inculcate
religious values, primarily employ Catholics, primarily serve Catholics and
be a non-profit organization. The California Supreme Court ruled that
Catholic Charities did not meet any of these criteria.
The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV is recommending that
family doctors, nurses and family planning consultants be able to provide
pharmaceutical and surgical abortions up to10 weeks' gestation. Increasing
the number of health care workers involved the the procedures will increase
the likelihood of conflicts of conscience in the professions.