Proposals made by the British Medical Association to strip doctors of their right to refuse to arrange abortions have been criticised by Catholic clergy and medics. "The right of conscience is a fundamental human right. The doctor's right to act according to his conscience remains firmly embedded both in medical practice and in the law," said Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff.
Archbishop Smith is head of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
Under the proposals, doctors would no longer be able to conscientiously object to authorising abortions but will be compelled to send any woman requesting the procedure directly to an agency or a physician offering the procedure.
It is expected that the move will be discussed by the association's policymaking body July 10 at its annual general meeting.
But Catholic medics said they would argue at the meeting that it would be unlawful to deny them a right of conscientious objection that is enshrined in Section 4 of Britain's 1967 Abortion Act.
"This would spell the death of the rights of conscience," said Dr Tony Cole of the Catholic Medical Association. He said the proposal was unlawful and can be challenged.
"A doctor whose conditions of service (were) affected by this might be able to seek redress through the courts," he said.
Dr Majid Khatme of the Islamic Medical Association said Muslim doctors were also "very unhappy" about the proposal.
"The conscience clause should not be removed," he said. "You cannot force me, as a doctor, to do things against my conscience. Something very dangerous is going on."
The proposals, initiated by the Oxford division of the association, insist that doctors "must refer" any woman to a doctor who will arrange an abortion if they will not do so themselves.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce