healthmedicinet

Miss Doogan and Mrs Wood, both from Glasgow, each have more than 20 years of
experience and objected on religious grounds to participating in abortion
procedures on the basis of their belief that the foetus has a right to life.

They issued a statement saying they were “absolutely delighted” by the
judgement, adding: “In holding all life to be sacred from conception to
natural death, as midwives we have always worked in the knowledge we have
two lives to care for throughout labour; a mother and that of her unborn
child.

“Today’s judgement is a welcome affirmation of the rights of all midwives to
withdraw from a practice that would violate their conscience and which over
time, would indeed debar many from entering what has always been a very
rewarding and noble profession.

“It is with great relief we can now return to considerations that are all to
do with child birth and midwifery practice and less to do with legal
matters.”

The pair set out their conscientious objection, under the 1967 Abortion Act,
a number of years ago and claimed in court that before 2007 they were not
called on to delegate, supervise or support staff dealing with abortions.

They said the health board then introduced changes that meant all patients
undergoing medical terminations had to be treated and cared for in the
labour ward, where they worked, rather than the gynaecology ward.

They claimed management later took the view that conscientious objectors
were permitted to withdraw from administering abortion-inducing drugs, but
were required to provide care for patients.

Lady Smith, who heard the initial case, said in her judgement last year that
they were “not being asked to play any direct role in bringing about
terminations of pregnancy”.

The women appealed and their counsel Gerry Moynihan QC told the appeal court
that, as part of a team, their right to conscientious objection extended to
all duties.

He added that because the midwives let the board know of their objection in
advance, it could have managed its staff to respect their rights.

Mr Moynihan told the court: “The administrative convenience of the health
board is irrelevant because the right is a balance between facilitating
abortion while respecting the genuine conscientious objection of medical,
nursing and ancillary staff.”

Brian Napier QC, for the health board, argued that having responsibility for
a managerial, supervisory or support role did not of itself trigger the
right to conscientious objection. The health board said it would be
considering its options.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which backed the
midwives, said the outcome was a “tremendous victory” for two devoted and
caring women.

Paul Tully, the society’s general secretary, added: “This outcome will be a
great relief to all midwives, nurses and doctors who may be under pressure
to supervise abortion procedures and who are wondering whether the law
protects their right to opt out.

“The difference this judgment makes is that hospital managers must recognise
that the legal right to opt out of abortion goes beyond those who directly
undertake abortions.”