TWO doctors have offered their support to two Catholic mid-wives who have launched a legal bid against Scotland's biggest health board to avoid overseeing abortions.
Dr Donogh Maguire and Dr Alison Crawford claim there is a "strong argument" for clinicians to be able to conscientiously object to supervising staff involved in the procedure.
Mary Doogan, 57, and Concepta Wood, 51, midwifery sisters at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, have taken NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to the Court of Session in Edinburgh over the issue.
They claim they should not be required to delegate, supervise or support staff in the participation and care of patients through "the processes of medical termination of pregnancy and feticide".
Their case has the support of Dr Maguire and Dr Crawford, who also claim women having abortions should be kept separate from those giving birth.
In a letter to The Herald, they write: "Obviously, no woman undertakes the process of abortion lightly. It strikes us as counter-intuitive and inappropriate to care for women undergoing an abortion in such close proximity to women undergoing normal delivery.
"According to the Nursing and Midwifery Council guidelines, the law does not give an interpretation of 'participation in treatment'.
"However, direct and vicarious responsibility require that the person in charge of running the labour ward is accountable for all care delivered during his or her shift.
"Surely, therefore, there is a strong argument for the rights of the clinician to conscientiously object to delegate and supervise staff undertaking direct involvement in abortion procedures."
The couple, from Glasgow, also praised the midwives for the treatment they received from them at the Southern General when their son was born five years ago. They added: "Both of these midwives impressed us with their professionalism and team management. They were simply excellent."
Ms Doogan, 57, and Ms Wood, 51, claim a change introduced by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in 2007 meant all patients undergoing a medical termination were to be treated and cared for in the labour ward and all staff members were required to provide care for patients through a termination, including labour.
They raised a grievance with their employers and asked to be able to conscientiously object to overseeing women undertaking abortions, but their appeal was rejected.
They are now seeking to have this decision overturned in a judicial review, claiming they believe that termination of pregnancy is wrongful and an offence against God.
Gillian Smith, director of the Royal College of Midwives in Scotland, said: "This has been going on for years and I think we need a little clarity on the issue and we would certainly welcome any judgment that gives us this.
"We fully support a midwife's bona fide right to conscientiously object to carrying out the procedure, but it remains to be seen whether this should apply to supervising the care of women during and after it."
She added: "These two women are not just midwives, they are clinical co-ordinators and they have a responsibility to offer guidance to junior members of staff and it certainly could cause problems if junior midwives go to a supervisor for help and they have decided to conscientiously object."
Counsel for the NHS board added that the action relates "to a question of public importance" and is likely to affect many cases arising in the future.
A ruling on the case will be given at a later date.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article