Two Catholic midwives have lost a legal battle for their entitlement to conscientious objection over supervising staff in abortions.

Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood claimed their right should extend to refuse to delegate, supervise or support staff looking after women undergoing termination.

They maintained the stance of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board – allegedly refusing to recognise their entitlement – violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh dismissed their judicial review petition and said they were protected from having any direct involvement with the procedure to which they objected.

Lady Smith 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 accommodation of their beliefs."

The judge said: "Further, they knowingly accepted these duties were to be part of their job. They can be taken to have known their professional body, the Royal College of Nursing, takes the view the right to conscientious objection is limited and extends only to active participation in the termination."

However, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, in whose archdiocese the Southern General Hospital sits, said: "I view this judgment with deep concern.

"It is fundamental to the functioning of society that all citizens act in accordance with an informed conscience.

"Any law or judgment that fails to recognise this contradicts that most basic freedom and duty which we all have as human beings, namely to follow our conscience and act accordingly.

"Any assault on this principle undermines the very basis of the law itself and society's moral cohesion."

The midwifery sisters were employed as labour ward co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, although Ms Doogan, 57, had been absent due to ill health since March 2010 and Mrs Wood, 51, had transferred to other work due to the dispute.

The women had given notice of their conscientious objection under the abortion legislation many years ago, but became concerned when all medical terminations were moved to the labour ward in 2007.

They claimed that previously they were not called on to delegate, supervise or support staff engaged in the care of patients undergoing terminations. The health authority disputed this.

Lady Smith said: "The patients in labour wards are pregnant women. For many, the purpose of their being there is to achieve a joyful outcome – the birth of a live, healthy child. There are, however, others who, for a variety of reasons, do not seek to achieve the birth of a live child and are in the ward so their pregnancy may be brought to an end, before term.

"The law recognises their right to pursue that purpose in certain circumstances."

Lady Smith said Ms Doogan, of Garrowhill, and Mrs Wood, of Clarkston, were Catholics and objected on religious grounds to participating in abortions.

"They are opposed to abortion. They believe every foetus has a right to life. They believe a disabled foetus has a right to life. They consider it abhorrent to be instructed to assist in or facilitate any action that will lead to termination of a woman's pregnancy," she said.

The judge added: "They do, however, recognise that they, in common with all midwives, have a duty of care for the pregnant woman as well as for her unborn child."

The midwives said they held a religious belief their involvement in the termination process, including its facilitation, was "wrongful and an offence against God and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church".

The health board maintained the Abortion Act did not confer on the midwives any right to refuse to delegate, support or supervise staff proving nursing care for women going through abortions.

During the debate earlier this year Lady Smith was told the case would be important for hospitals throughout Britain.

The midwives, who had the support of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, claimed the health board decision breached their rights under Article 9 of the ECHR which guarantees the right to freedom of religion.

However, Lady Smith said she was not satisfied their Article 9 rights were being interfered with.

The judge said: "In any event, the nature of their duties does not, in fact, require them to provide treatment to terminate pregnancies directly."

Ms Doogan said: "Connie and I are both very disappointed and greatly saddened by today's verdict.

""We wish now to take some time to consider all options that are available to us (including appeal) before making any further comment."