January-March, 2011
An amendment to a protection of conscience law passed last year in Idaho
has been approved by the state Senate and will now go to the state governor
for his signature. The amendment requires physicians who object to
provisions of advance directives for reasons to concience to adhere to the
provisions of Idaho's exiting living will law. In effect, they will be
required to refer patients for treatment that they find morally
objectionable. Those opposed to freedom of conscience in these circumstances
continue to be dissatisfied with the amendment and are urging the governor
not to sign the bill. [Spokesman Review:
editorial;
article]
Update 26 May, 2011, courtesy Jonathon Imbody, Christian Medical
Association:
". . . the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) now includes links to
three conscience laws. The explanation also includes a fuller detail of
the law than . . . previously noted, with wording that reflects the
Church amendment, part (d): "... coerced into performing procedures that
you find religiously or morally objectionable..."
Update 25 August, 2011
The website now accurately states that the amendments were intended
"to prohibit recipients of certain federal funds from discriminating
against health care providers based on their refusal to participate in
certain health care services they find religiously or morally
objectionable."
The US Department of Health and Human Services is the agency that revoked
much of a protection of conscience regulation enacted by the previous
administration, and is "designated
to receive complaints of discrimination based on the Federal Health Care
Conscience Protection Statutes." It is also supposed to undertake public
education and outreach on freedom of conscience in health care. However, its
website misrepresents the Church Amendments, stating that they
"were enacted . . . to protect the conscience rights of individuals and
entities that object to performing or assisting in the performance of
abortion or sterilization procedures," while leaving out reference to
other services and procedures contained in the Amendments. [Reconfirmed 11
April 2011].
The Department appears to have overlooked other relevant federal
statutes, some of which refer to procedures other than abortion:
The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), an American activist
organization with multi-national connections, has joined the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) in attacking freedom of conscience among health care
workers who object to contracption for moral or ethical reasons. The two
organizations have produced a
briefing
paper that asserts that access to contraception is a human right, a
claim that the CRR has privately admitted is unsupported by international
law [See
Secret Memos]. They deny that freedom of conscience can be exercised by
any group of people operating through an institution, demand that
governments regulate the practice of conscientious objection, demand that
objectors refer for the procedures to which they object, and demand other
restrictions upon the exercise of freedom of conscience. A number of these
demands have been rejected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, which reacted to them by affirming the importance of freedom of
conscience [See
Resolution 1763 and linked documents].
The House of Representatives in South Carolina has passed
HB3408, the Freedom of Conscience Act. The bill provides protection for
employees, health care institutions, health care providers, insurers and
students who refuse, for reasons of conscience, to perform or otherwise
facilitate procedures that involve embryo experimentation or destruction,
that involve the use of tissue obtained by abortion, or that result in the
death of an individual. Objectors are required to provide written notice of
their objections. The bill now moves to the state Senate for consideration.
A
public statement against proposed legalization of abortion has been
signed by 78 obstetrician/gynaecologists in Argentina. The statement
indicates that conflicts of conscience are likely to arise in the medical
profession if the procedure is legalized.
A controversial "reproductive health" and population management bill
(commonly known as the "RH Bill") has failed to pass during the spring
session of the Philippines House of Representatives, but is likely to be
taken up again in May. The bill poses a significant threat to freedom of
conscience [See "
Philippines RH Bill: the shape of things to come?"
].
25 March, 2011
Medical professionals in Alberta are being warned that they should not
publicly express "personal" views about health care delivery in the
province. The wanring came from Stephen Duckett, who is leaving his position
as CEO of Alberta Health Services, the government agency that runs the
province's public health care system. There have been reports that health
care workers concerned about problems have been "muzzled" and "bullied" to
prevent them from speaking out. [Canadian
Health Care Network] The issue of freedom of expression may be related
to that of freedom of conscience, since suppression of the former could be
indicative of hostility to the latter.
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, former Anglican Bishop of Rochester, England,
has warned that aggressive secularism is leading to an "encroaching
totalitarianism" that has become a threat to freedom of conscience. [The
Christian Institute]
About 30% to 35% of Nova Scotia's general practitioners use some kind of
electronic medical records system, and the province plans to double that
number in three years. Using digitalized records and the internet it is
possible to provide consultations, prescriptions and other services to
patients. [Canadian
Healthcare Network] The technological advances may make it easier to
accommodate freedom of conscience in health care while providing patients
with access to services.
The Governor of Utah has signed
House Bill 353,
the Abortion Freedom of Conscience Act.
In a 15-2 ruling, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
reversed a lower court decision and affirmed that crucifixes may be
displayed in public school classrooms in Italy. The majority judgement
turned on what European jurisprudence refers to as the "margin of
appreciation" - the extent to which member states of the European Union may
be permitted to maintain cultural and national traditions within the context
of legal obligations incurred by membership in the Union. However,
concurring judgements filed by Judges Bonello and Power directly addressed
the relationship between secularism and freedom of conscience and religion.
Their observations and arguments are of particular interest because they
challenged the frequent claim that only secular and not religious beliefs
should be permitted to influence public conduct. [Case
of Lautsi and Others vs. Italy]
Prescription medications in Ontario can now be provided through
MedCentre, an automated pharmacy dispensing system designed and manufactured
in the province. Pharmacists at the head office of Pharma Trust manage and
staff the system and provide service in 11 languages around the clock.
Patients access the service at kiosks, where they enter their prescriptions
and confer with a pharmacist by videophone. The pharmacist reviews the
prescription and can then authorize the system to release the drugs. [Canadian
Healthcare Network] Systems of this kind could be used to accommodate
pharmacists who object to dispensing a drug for reasons of conscience, while
ensuring patient access to the drug.
HR1179, Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011, has been
introduced in the US House of Representatives. The purposes of the bill are
"to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide,
purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their
religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or
discriminated against" and "to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates
new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from
health plans or other programs under PPACA." However, the bill includes
provisions to protect individual health care workers.
American Medical Students for Life, Students for Life, representatives of
the Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association and the
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists have
written a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the US Department of
Health and Human Services, to protest the weakening of a protection of
conscience regulation. They are seeking a meeting with the Secretary to
discuss their concerns. The
letter is available on-line and readers can add their names to support
it.
House Bill 187, an amendment to the
Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals Act, has passed
the State House of Representatives. Critics of the Act believe that the bill
does not go far enough, even though it would force objecting physicians
facilitate what they consider to be morally objectionable conduct by
referral. (KTRV
TV)
An idea that is being criticized by some pharmacists nonetheless
demonstrates one method of accommodating of freedom of conscience in the
profession. The Government of Nunavut, one of Canada's northern territories,
is considering a plan to have health centre and hospital prescriptions
handled electronically by clinical pharmacists in Ottawa. The scheme would
use e-health telecommunications to connect patients to Ottawa General
Hospital. [Canada
Health Care Network] If access to prescriptions can be managed in this
fashion, there seems no reason to believe that it could not be used as one
way to accommodate of freedom of conscience among pharmacists while
preserving patient access to drugs.
A 2007 British Social Attitudes survey found up to 80 percent of the
British public supported voluntary euthanasia by physicians in cases of
terminal illness, and up to 60 percent agreed with physician assisted
suicide in the same circumstances. However, a new study has disclosed that
the majority physicians in the United Kingdom have been consistently opposed
to both practices for at least twenty years. [Medical
News Today] [Attitudes
of UK doctors towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A
systematic literature review]. The findings demonstrate that
legalization of the procedures would likely generate conflicts of conscience
among many in the medical profession.
The Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by a journalist to have food
and fluids withdrawn from a comatose patient in order to cause her death.
The patient, Aruna Shanbaug, has been cared for in Mumbai's King Edward
Memorial (KEM) Hospital for 37 years. The Court accepted what it called
"passive euthanasia" if carried out under court supervision. By this is
appears to mean the withdrawal of life support, but it is not clear whether
or not this refers only to extraordinary or burdensome measures. The court
ruled that journalist was not in a position to compel hospital staff to
withdraw of food and fluids because the relationship of hospital staff
caring for Shanbaug was closer than that of the journalist. [Indo-Asian
News Service]
The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed opposition to Alaskan
Senate Bill 14, which would ensure respect for freedom of conscience of
heatlh care employees who have notified employers of their objections to
services or procedures. Other opponents of the bill are afraid that it might
undermine a state Supreme Court ruling that forced a Catholic hospital in
the state to permit abortion on its premises. [Fairbanks
Daily News Miner]
Speaking in Malta, Professor Roger Trigg, Academic Director of the Centre
for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Kellogg College, Oxford, and an
Advisor to the Protection of Conscience Project, addressed the theme
"Free to Believe? A Religious Conscience in a Secular Society." The lecture
drew on thoughts developed in the publication
Freedom to Believe, published by
Theos. Professor Trigg noted
that religious viewpoints are frequently not respected or even accommodated,
citing the threat by the Irish government to criminally prosecute marriage
registrars unwiling to register 'marriages' by same-sex couples. He said
that European authorities are inclined to see relgion as a threat that must
be controlled. "What is developing is not neutrality but often hostility to
religion, with an ideology of human rights taking its place," he said. [Times
of Malta]
The Idaho House State Affairs Committee has approved what is termed a
narrow amendment to the
Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals Act contained
in
House Bill 187. The bill will move to the full House for a vote.[Spokesman
Review] The amendment states that in cases involving a living will or
similar orders, a physician who objects to proceeding with the specified
treatment for reasons of conscience must comply with section
39-4513(2), Idaho Code. This requires the objecting physician to help
the patient find another physician willing to do what the patient wishes. In
cases where the concern arises from a belief that what is wanted amounts to
euthanasia, the objecting physician is, in effect, required to find another
physician willing to provide the service. This would not be acceptable to
some objecting physicians because of concern that they would be morally
complicit in the act. The provision goes beyond what can be found in some
existing euthanasia and assisted suicide statutes, which require only that
an objecting physician cooperate in a patient-initiated transfer of care.
Nonetheless, opponents of the Act are not satisfied even with this
amendment. [AARP
news release]
The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) demands that pharmacists must
dispense the morning-after pill or refer patients for the medication even if
they object to doing so because of concerns that the drug may have an
embryocidal effect. [Iona
Institute][Irish
Catholic]
Idaho's House State Affairs Committee has rejected one of three bills
that would amend the state's
Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals Act. The bill
was supported by the American Association of Retired People because of
concerns that the state law will override living wills and advance
directives. [AARP
news release] One editorial held that health care workers who wish to
practise according to their conscientious convictions should leave the
state, but suggests that, at present, the Act should be amended. [Spokesman
Review]
Six different reproductive health (RH) bills, all controversial, have
been combined in the Philippines House of Representatives to produce
House Bill 4244, "The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and
Population Development Act of 2011." The single bill, which includes a
number of passages that are problematic from the perspective of freedom of
conscience, will now be considered by the House. [Philippines
Star]
Three bills have been proposed to amend Idaho's
Freedom of Conscience for Health Care Professionals Act. The bills
are driven by concerns that the Act would permit health care workers to
refuse to abide by advance directives. Rep. Tom Loertscher, chairman of the
House State Affairs Committee, was a co-sponsor of the Act. He is reported
to be refusing to hold hearings on the new bills because he believes hat
they would undermine its provisions. He conceded that his concern was that
patient-directed disconnection of ventilators or feeding tubes could be
considered suicide. [Spokesman
Review]
The German Medical Association, which hitherto has considered physician
involvement in suicide a violation of medical ethics, has proposed new
guidelines that state that participation in assisted suicide is not a
medical duty. This continues to afford protection to physicians who object
to assisted suicide. The approach is being interpreted as a method of
providing greater freedom of conscience within the profession. [De-World]
Americans United for Life has protested the revision of a federal
protection of conscience regulation by the Obama administration. "The
protection of the basic civil right to provide care without participating in
life-destructive activities must not be dependent on the whims of an
Administration that has made expanding abortion central to its mission." [AUL
news release]
The announcement by the Obama administration of the revocation of
important parts of a federal protection of conscience regulation has
disappointed American Catholic bishops. However, spokesman for the bishops
welcomed the administration's claim that it would work to increase awareness
of protection of conscience laws and ensure compliance with them. [USCCB
News Release][CNA]
The Department of Health and Human Services has announced a
new regulation to replace
one enacted by the Bush administration to ensure protection of
conscience in health care. The regulation will come into force in 30 days.
The Department received over 300,000 comments on its proposal to revoke the
Bush regulation, 187,000 of which (62%) were opposed to revocation. The
Department states that it "seeks to strengthen existing health care provider
conscience statutes by retaining that part of the
2008 Final Rule that established an enforcement process," while
rescinding "those parts of the
2008 Final Rule that were unclear and potentially overbroad in scope."
It insists that the "partial rescission . . . does not alter or affect the
federal statutory health care provider conscience protections." [HHS
Commentary] [CNS
News] [Washington
Post] [Christian
Post]
46 members of the US House of Representatives have written
a letter to the Health and Human Services Secretary to defend protection
of conscience regulations for health care workers. They cite recent cases
involving attacks on freedom of conscience in health care and ask the
Secretary to explain if the Department has complied with existing law by
requiring certification of compliance by the institutions alleged to have
violated federal statutes. [News
release]
Julian Salvulescu, a professor of ethics at Oxford University who is
opposed to freedom of conscience for health care workers [BMJ,
2006], argues that society has a moral obligation to use in vitro
fertilization and screen embryos to ensure that they will have a high IQ (Sunday
Herald Sun). Presumably he would insist that health care workers be
compelled to facilitate the process if it were adopted.
The approval of a policy revision concerning abortion by the
College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Saskatchewan is generating concern and confusion among some medical
professionals and inaccurate claims in the media. The guideline, approved
Friday, is titled "Guideline:
Unplanned Pregnancy." News reports suggest or even assert that the
guideline states that objecting physicians must refer patients for abortion
[Star
Phoenix,
National Post,
Edmonton Sun], but that is not the case.
The
Montana Senate Bill 167 (Montana Death with Dignity Act) includes some
protection of conscience provisions that extend to all health care workers
and institutions, including pharmacists. Referral is not required, but
objecting individuals and institutions must transfer records upon request.
However, objecting institutions cannot prevent referrals from their
premises, and legal protection for objectors is more limited than that
provided for participants.
Medical Students for Life (Med SFLA) will
tour 19 states in 14 days during February and March, giving presentations to
students and the public at 22 medical schools to alert them to threats to
freedom of conscience in health care posed by the current U.S.
administration.
Marylee Meehan, president of the
International Catholic Committee of Nurses and Medical-Social Assistants, or
CICIAMS, notes that
Catholic nurses worldwide are facing what she calls "a worldwide erosion of
spiritual and moral standards in their profession." She states that nurses
unwilling to participate in abortion may be denied employment, and other are
afraid to speak out because they may be fired. [CNA/EWTN]
Bill Saunders of Americans United for
Life is warning that an attack on protection of conscience laws in the
United States is "imminent." He reminds readers that the Obama
administration filed court documents indicating that the revocation of a
protection of conscience regulation would take place between the end of
January and the beginning of March, 2011. [LifeNews]
At least two Catholic bishops in the
Philippines have warned that if the Reproductive Health bill (RH bill)
passes in its current form they will not obey the law and will encourage
civil disobedience. [GMA
News] The warning indicates the probability of conflicts of conscience
arising in health care professions if the bill becomes law. [See
Philippines "RH Bill": the shape of things to come?]
The American health care reform law passed last year states that health
insurance plans must provide "preventive health services" free of charge.
The Obama administration is reported to be planning to use the law to force
insurers to provide free contraceptives. It is clear that such a requirement
would suppress freedom of conscience of employers and insurers who have
moral or religious objections to contraception or abortifacient or
embryocidal drugs or devices that are often marketed as contraceptives. [New
York Times]
Dr Sanjay Oak, dean, of King Edward Memorial hospital in Mumbai, India,
has expressed his opposition to an attempt by a journalist and lawyer to end
the life of Aruna Shanbaug, a patient in the hospital. [See
Journalist seeks
euthanasia for patient in India]. "We have no moral right to terminate
her life. I am certainly against euthanasia for Shanbaug." [DNA]
Philippines Health Secretary Enrique Ona is reported to be drafting a
Responsible Parenthood Bill that President Aquino will submit to Congress as
an alternative to the consolidated bill now called An Act Providing for
a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and
Population Development and for Other Purposes. (popularly, "the RH
bill"). According to a presidential spokesman, Aquino supports freedom of
conscience. "If there are provisions to that effect in the RH bill where one
is compelled to do an act in violation of his conscience, then that is
certainly a provision that is against the position of the President . . . In
fact, the President is of the belief that there should be penal sanctions
against those that seek to impose on someone to violate his own conscience."
[Philippines
Star] Meanwhile, a committee of the House of Representatives has
consolidated six previous bills with a view to proceeding with the
consolidated version. [Philippines
Star] [See
Philippines "RH Bills": the shape of things to come?]
Commentator Wesley J. Smith, who supports freedom of conscience in health
care in principle, has commented that the
Idaho Case of Pharmacist Refusal was not a legitimate exercise of
freedom of conscience by the pharmacist. [See
Investigation of
Idaho pharmacist concluded]
Several reproductive health bills before the Philippines House of
Representatives
Committee on Population and Family Relations have been consolidated into
a single bill, An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Policy on
Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population Development and
for Other Purposes. The text of the new bill is apparently not yet
available. The Catholic bishops of the country have issued a
pastoral letter strongly
stating their opposition to the bill, noting that the sanctions and
penalties affecting freedom of conscience and conscientious objection "are
one more reason for us to denounce it."[Philippine
Star] [See
Philippines "RH Bills": the shape of things to come?]
Officials implementing "a new philosophy" in three gynaecological and
obstetrical clinics associated with Bratislava University Hospital recently
circulated a notice that the clinics would cease providing abortions on 1
February. It appears that some physicians among the 80 gynaecologists
working in the clinics disagreed with the change and notified the media
about what they called "a mysterious unofficial decision." As a result of
the publicity, the policy was reversed and the clinics will continue
providing abortions, although the practice is contrary to the "new
philosophy." [TASR;
Slovak Spectator -
26 January,
27 January,
28 January] It seems that the developments are related to conscientious
objection to abortion by many physicians in the clinics.
The Idaho Board of Pharmacy has ruled that no action will be taken
against an Idaho pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for
Methergrine, a drug that may be prescribed to control bleeding after an
abortion. News reports indicate that the pharmacist wanted to know if that
was the reason for the prescription, and was apparently motivated in
refusing to fill the prescription by that possibility. The Board ruled that
the state Pharmacy Act does not require pharmacists to fill prescriptions,
that the patient had obtained the drug elsewhere and was thus not in grave
danger, and, finally, that the pharmacist had been given no information
"that would have reasonably led [him/her] to believe that any type of
emergency existed." [Idaho
Press-Tribune;
Board of Pharmacy letter] It is impossible to see how the pharmacist
could have reasonably concluded that filling the prescription would have
implicated him/her in an abortion done previously, even if that were the
cause of the bleeding. As a result, the incident has generated strident
attacks on policies and laws that accommodate the conscientious convictions
of pharmacists, and is being cited as a reason to deny pharmacists freedom
of conscience. [See, for example,
Sun Sentinel, RH
Reality Check,
Sexy Feminist]
The proposed federal protection of conscience bills [HR358
Protect Life Act,
HR361 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2011] are being supported by
the Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents 53 California
Catholic and community-based affiliated hospitals providing nearly 16
percent of all California in-patient acute care. [News
release]
Dr. Ann McPherson, described as "one of the best known GPs in the
country," is the leader of a group of British professionals who want to
legalize assisted suicide. Formation of the group was announced in October,
2010, as "Health Care Professionals for Change." It has since been renamed "Health
Care Professionals for Assisted Death." It includes "19 professors, 32
consultants and 145 doctors," among whom are some who are prominent in the
medical profession and academe. Dr. McPherson insists that the official
organizations representing the medical do no accurately reflect the views of
their members on the subject, and that "[T]he profession is out of step with
the public" on the subject. She believes that assisted suicide will
eventually be legalized, and suggests that the British Abortion Act (which
requires two physicians to approve an abortion) affords a model for the
process. [The
Independent] The group has not taken a position with respect to freedom
of conscience for those who object to euthanasia and assisted suicide. This
is an important point, since the protection of conscience provision in the
Abortion Act has proved inadequate. [See, for example,
Access to Appointments,
Question of Conscience,
Abortion Law Reform]
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has expressed support
for three bills currently before the U.S. House of Representatives,
including two [HR358
Protect Life Act,
HR361 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2011] that include protection
of conscience measures.[News
release]
The Supreme Court of India has ordered physicians to examine the medical
condition who has been paralyzed and considered brain dead since being
strangled by a rapist in 1973. The order was made as a result of an
application by a journalist who wants the court to order food and fluids
stopped so that the woman will die. [BBC]
The procedure has become common in other jurisdictions, but can give rise to
conflicts of conscience among health care workers who object to euthanasia.
Health Minister Philipp Rösler and the German Medical Association have
asked German firms to refuse to supply the United States with the
barbiturate anaesthetic sodium thiopental because the drug is used in
executions by lethal injection. Their position demonstrates that individuals
and groups refuse to participate even indirectly in what they believe to be
wrong, and that this is not considered unusual. Conscientious objectors in
health care may have the same reaction to morally controversial practices. [The
Local]
Speaking to officials from Police Headquarters in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI
warned of that modern thinking presents a "grave risk" in its "reductive
vision of conscience" that sees each person having "his own truth, his own
morality." As a result, he said, "faith with its values and conduct is no
longer to have a right and a place in public and civil life." The Pope said
that "the true meaning of "conscience" is man's capacity to recognize the
truth and, the possibility prevails again of hearing its claim, of seeking
it and finding it." [Full
text]
The Idaho branch of the American Association of Retired People (AARP)
will "aggressively" lobby to have the state's
protection of conscience law changed. AARP claims that the law allows
health care workers to refuse to abide by advance directives or living
wills. It wants the law changed to ensure that this cannot happen. [News
Channel 7;
AARP News Release] The law is also under attack because a Walgreens
pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for Methergrine, a drug used to
control bleeding, apparently because he/she could not be sure that the
patient had not had an abortion [Sun
Sentinel].
Senate Bill 14, which has been introduced in the Alaskan legislature, is
drafted to afford protection of conscience for health care employees who
have given an employer notice of their objections to a service or procedure.
It obliges the employer to accommodate the objector unless it would cause
undue hardship to the employer, or the employee is the only person able to
assist in a life-threatening situation.
Two bills that include measures intended to protect freedom of conscience
in health care have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to
amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law enacting
reforms in the American health care system. [See
HR358 Protect Life Act,
HR361 Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2011]
Freedom2Care has made available a one-page summary of the threat to
freedom of conscience in health care in the United States. The handout has a
customizable box at the bottom that can be used to insert an organization's
own name and message. [Freedom2Care
Summary]
Omaha Senator Pete Pirsch has introduced
LB461, the Freedom of Conscience Act. The procedures addressed in the
bill are abortion, embryonic and foetal experimentation, transplantation
involving foetal tissue, and any act intended to cause the death of an
individual. The bill extends protection to anyone who declines to
participate in such procedures for reasons of conscience, including health
care workers and institutions and religiously affiliated insurance plans.
Jeanne Monahan, Director of the Family Research Council's Center for
Human Dignity, offered a number of criticisms of the health care reforms
being enacted under new federal legislation in the United States. Among
them, she expressed concern that the inclusion of abortion and contraception
as forms of health care would "undermine the freedom of conscience for many
in health care professions. [News
Release]
Speaking to members of the diplomatic corps, Pope Benedict XVI expressed
concern about lack of religious freedom and the persecution of Christians in
different parts of the world. With reference to the west, he said:
I think in the first place of countries which accord great importance to
pluralism and tolerance, but where religion is increasingly being
marginalized. There is a tendency to consider religion, all religion, as
something insignificant, alien or even destabilizing to modern society,
and to attempt by different means to prevent it from having any
influence on the life of society. Christians are even required at times
to act in the exercise of their profession with no reference to their
religious and moral convictions, and even in opposition to them, as for
example where laws are enforced limiting the right to conscientious
objection on the part of health care or legal professionals.
In this context, one can only be gratified by the adoption by the
Council of Europe last October of a resolution protecting the right to
conscientious objection on the part of medical personnel vis-Ã -vis
certain acts which gravely violate the right to life, such as abortion.
. . [Full
text]
An Australian couple with three boys has aborted twin boys and gone to
the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to overturn the law that
prevents sex selective in vitro fertilization. Both sex selective
abortion and sex selective IVF are morally controversial even among those
who do not otherwise object to the procedures. [Perth
Now] The case demonstrates the potential for conflicts of conscience
among health care workers in such circumstances.
Professionals for Ethics in Spain has announced that 3,000 e-mails have
been sent by Spaniards to Minister of Health, Leire Pajin, demanding that
she respect freedom of conscience of health care workers who object to
abortion and euthanasia. The e-mail campaign follows the passage of
Resolution 1763 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
that affirmed the importance of freedom of conscience in health care. [CNA]
In response to suggestions from the Philippines Catholic hierarchy that
support for the
proposed reproductive health bills could lead to excommunication,
supporters of the bills held an 'Excommunication Party' under the slogan,
"If Supporting the RH Bill Means Excommunication, Excommunicate Me!" The
event was reported to have been sold out, though the number of attendees was
not given. [IPS]
Irish Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore insists that Ireland should
legalize abortion in cases of a threat to the life or health of the mother
in light of the A,B, & C v Ireland ruling in the European Court of
Human Rights [Irish
Times;
European Court of Human Rights decision on Irish abortion law]. Others,
opposed to abortion, are insisting that no change in the law is needed. The
current
Irish Medical Council guidelines note that current law permits abortion
when there is a "real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the
health) of the mother." The guidelines state that a physician must not allow
his "personal moral standards" to influence his treatment of patients, and
must make the names of other doctors available if he declines to provide a
procedure for reasons of conscience. The former requirement could be
problematic, inasmuch as physicians cannot practise at all without adhering
to moral standards of some sort. Many physicians who object to abortion
would also be unwilling to facilitate the procedure by providing the names
of abortion providers. These points would likely come to the fore if
abortion were legalized in Ireland. [See
Conscientious Objection in Ireland (May, 2000)]
John Harris, Director of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation
at the University of Manchester, argues that the sale of organs should be
legalized and regulated in order to relieve the current shortage of organs
for transplant and eliminate the abuses caused by the current black market
in organs. [The
Independent]