Catholic midwifes win appeal

[Viking Warrior]

Catholic midwives win appeal over abortion case

Interesting decision re Human Rights case. Two Roman Catholic midwives have won a legal battle to avoid taking any part in abortion procedures. Heres part of the story.

 

Mary Doogan, 58, and Concepta Wood, 52, lost a previous case against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC).

 

The court ruled that their human rights had not been violated as they were not directly involved in terminations.

 

Appeal judges have now ruled their right to conscientious objection means they can refuse to delegate, supervise or support staff involved in abortions.

 

This ruling

This sort of smacks in the face of other appeals that have not been upheld such as religious symbols. and the relate Counsellor who raised a claim about not counselling Gay folk

 

This is a core part of their role but The midwifery sisters have a right of conscientious objection, which is recognised in the 1967 Abortion Act. Surely this is some what out of Sync with todays legislation etc. They became Midwifes so would have known that they would be required to undertake or be involved such procedures.

 

I shall read the court case further but the BBC report on this is quite interesting. I think they have shot themselves in the foot as they are midwifery sisters and do have to supervise and delegate other staff. May have an impact on their salary levels if they are not carrying out the full role in the future.

Edited 25 April, 2013 by Viking Warrior

[Pugwash]

I thought the religious symbol appeal was upheld?

[Viking Warrior]

Only one of the cases

[Yeovil Saint]

Catholic midwives win appeal over abortion case

Interesting decision re Human Rights case. Two Roman Catholic midwives have won a legal battle to avoid taking any part in abortion procedures. Heres part of the story.

 

Mary Doogan, 58, and Concepta Wood, 52, lost a previous case against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC).

 

The court ruled that their human rights had not been violated as they were not directly involved in terminations.

 

Appeal judges have now ruled their right to conscientious objection means they can refuse to delegate, supervise or support staff involved in abortions.

 

 

This sort of smacks in the face of other appeals that have not been upheld such as religious symbols. and the relate Counsellor who raised a claim about not counselling Gay folk

 

This is a core part of their role but The midwifery sisters have a right of conscientious objection, which is recognised in the 1967 Abortion Act. Surely this is some what out of Zinc with todays legislation etc. They became Midwifes so would have known that they would be required to undertake or be involved such procedures.

 

I shall read the court case further but the BBC report on this is quite interesting. I think they have shot themselves in the foot as they are midwifery sisters and do have to supervise and delegate other staff. May have an impact on their salary levels if they are not carrying out the full role in the future.

It's just a case where the specific law (Abortion Act 1967) overrides the general law (Equality Act 2010). If Parliament had intended the provisions in the Abortion Act then they should have made that clear.

[Viking Warrior]

Yeovil The midwifes appealed under article 9 oh the human rights act and not the equality act of 2010

The midwives, who had the support of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, claimed that the health board decision also breached their rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees the right to freedom of religion. It would appear on the face of it that there is an in consistency in some judgements . It's not until you peel away the veneer of the case you see the real problems that have occurred.

 

Take the needs of have an unequivocal duty of care to ensure the safety of patients and and at the same time must balance this responsibility with the rights of the conscientious objector. . In this case it would appear the safety of the patient has been not put at the front of the judicial ruling, From an employment law angle If the NHS were to during the recruitment process to ask applicants their moral views on abortion and then were not appointed because of their conscientious objections . Then the applicant would then sue the NHS on grounds of discrimination . While the 1967 abortion act is stil in place 46 years ago . Days of back street abortions . Is it still relevant in today's modern society. Probably but if you go into a career you know what your responsibilities are . You don't join todays army if your opposed to being sent to places of conflict . I believe this ruling has huge implications and means the rights of the employee has priority of the needs of the patient . And I don't mean just midwifes but all health care professional . Fortunately these two are just an extremely small percentage and the vast majority work in health care purely to help patients .

Edited 25 April, 2013 by Viking Warrior