A motion (below) considered at the annual general meeting
of the British Medical Association purported to support conscientious
objection that is recognized in British
statutes concerning abortion and artificial reproduction, but only on
condition that physicians who object to abortion for reasons of conscience
facilitate the procedure by referring patients to more willing
colleagues. The motion was brought forward by the Oxford Division, of which
abortion supporter Dr. Evan Harris was a member. He was a Liberal Democratic
Member of Parliament who favoured abortion and had spoken against freedom of
conscience for health care workers.
Representatives from the Catholic
Medical Association and the Islamic Medical Association in Britain expressed
strong opposition to the motion. In the end, by an extraordinarily narrow
margin (50.6 %) delegates voted against the motion. Much of the opposition
to the motion centred on its requirement that objecting physicians be
required to disclose their position on abortion in pamphlets and other
notices. A number of opponents were concerned that this would indirectly
lead to the identification of physicians who do provide abortions, while
others believed that there were better ways to advise patients of their
views.
Dr. Evan Harris, a BMA member as well as a Liberal Democratic MP, clearly
indicated his desire to restrict freedom of conscience for health care
workers. He was prepared to accept the existing legal recognition of freedom
of conscience in the case of abortion and artificial reproduction, but
argued "we should go no further" [Scotsman].
Just days before the meeting, the proposal was attacked by Cormac Cardinal
Murphy-O'Connor and Baroness Cumberlege, a Catholic peer and former Junior
Health Minister [Catholic
Herald].
That this Meeting:
(i) supports the rights of doctors and other health care professionals to
conscientiously object to carrying out, or referring directly for, certain
non-emergency lawful procedures, where:
(a) such conscientious objection is recognised in statute, as in
abortion and IVF;
(b) the doctor recognises that s/he is not in a position to give
balanced advice to patients considering that procedure and does not
claim to do so;
(c) the medical practice makes every effort to inform patients in
advance, for example through practice leaflets, which doctors are able
to provide such advice and make appropriate referrals;
(d) in the event of seeing a patient seeking advice on such a procedure,
the doctor must refer them to another doctor for such advice;
(e) in the event of seeing a patient seeking such a procedure, the
doctor must, in line with GMC guidance, tell them of their right to see
another doctor and ensure that the patient has sufficient information to
exercise their right; but if the patient cannot readily make their own
arrangements to see another doctor, the doctor must ensure that
arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over
their care.
(ii) calls on the GMC to ensure its guidance on personal beliefs and
medical practice reflects this view;
(iii) calls on parliament to retain the statutory right of doctors and other
health care professionals to conscientiously object in abortion and IVF
services within the above limits.