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."
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