TWO Catholic midwives have won a legal battle for the right to conscientious exemption from all involvement with abortions, in a case which is likely to be important for hospitals throughout Britain.

Appeal judges have upheld a court challenge brought by midwifery sisters Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood, who worked as labour ward co-ordinators at a Glasgow hospital.

They maintained their right to conscientious objection should extend to refusing to delegate, supervise or support staff looking after women undergoing terminations.

Their initial challenge brought in a judicial review of a decision of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, but it was rejected by Lady Smith at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year.

However, three judges at the same court yesterday ruled their appeal should succeed.

Lady Dorrian, who heard the challenge with Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord McEwan, said: "In our view the right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose."

She said the conscientious objection in the legislation is given "not because the acts in question were previously, or may have been, illegal.

"The right is given because it is recognised the process of abortion is felt by many people to be morally repugnant," said Lady Dorrian.

She said, as Lord Diplock had observed in another case, "it is a matter on which many people have strong moral and religious convictions and the right of conscientious objection is given out of respect for those convictions and not for any other reason".

"It is consistent with the reasoning which allowed such an objection in the first place, that it should extend to any involvement in the process of treatment, the object of which is to terminate a pregnancy," said Lady Dorrian.

The women, who worked at Glasgow's Southern General Hospital, also originally claimed the stance adopted by the health board violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ms Doogan and Mrs Wood object on religious grounds to participating in abortion and believe the foetus has a right to life. They had set out a conscientious objection, stemming from their beliefs, to participating in abortions many years ago – a measure which was recognised in the 1967 Abortion Act.

They maintained that before 2007 they were not called on to delegate, supervise or support staff dealing with patients undergoing terminations, although the board denied that.

Lady Smith said in her earlier judgment: "They are not being asked to play any direct role in bringing about terminations of pregnancy."

The judge said: "Nothing they have to do as part of their duties terminates a woman's pregnancy.

"They are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as, it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for and accom- modation of their beliefs," she said.

Ms Doogan, 58, of Garrowhill, and Mrs Wood, 52, of Clarkston, both Glasgow, appealed against the ruling to the three judges at the Court of Session, claiming Lady Smith had erred.

Their counsel, Gerry Moynihan, QC, told the appeal judges that in so far as the women were part of a team, their right to conscientious objection extended to the whole of their duties, save for the provision there was an obligation to participate in life-saving measures.

He argued they should not be required to carry out duties which were, or were liable to be, in conflict with their conscience.

Brian Napier, QC, for the health authority, told the appeal judges that having responsibility of a managerial, supervisory or support nature did not of itself trigger the right to conscientious objection.

Mr Napier earlier told Lady Smith the outcome of the case was likely "to have general importance for other hospitals not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK".

Philip Tartaglia, Archbishop of Glasgow, said: "Today's decision by the appeal judges is a victory for freedom of conscience and for common sense.

"The midwives are to be commended for their courage and determination in standing up to an unjust requirement of the employer that they be involved in abortion procedures."