Concerns have been raised that increasing numbers of doctors with objections to abortion may threaten a woman’s ability to seek a termination
The head of the State Government’s healthcare improvement agency, Clinical Excellence Queensland, recently wrote to the RACGP calling for better management of conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy.
But the RACGP [Royal Australian College of General Practitioners] maintained its view that conscientious objection is necessary. . . [Full text]
The Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 came into effect in Queensland, Australia, today.
The bill permits abortion up to 22 weeks gestation for any reason; no medical indications are required (Section 5). Abortion after 22 weeks gestation may be performed for any reason that two practitioners find acceptable (Section6(1)a), including current and future “social circumstances” (6(2)b).
The bill requires disclosure of objections to abortion by a practitioner when asked by someone (not necessarily a patient) to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion on a woman, to make a decision about whether an abortion should be provided for a woman who is over 22 weeks pregnant (Section 6), or to advise about the performance of an abortion on a woman.
When a woman wants an abortion or advice about an abortion for herself, an objecting practitioner is required to refer or transfer the care of the woman to someone or an agency willing to provide it (Section 3).
Practitioners who object to abortion in principle and those who object in particular cases are often unwilling to facilitate the procedure by referral, transfers of care or other means because they believe that this makes them parties to or complicit in an immoral act. Thus, the provision for conscientious objection in the bill actually suppresses the exercise of freedom of conscience by these practitioners.
A controversy has developed in Queensland, Australia, over the refusal of some parents to have their children vaccinated. Although media reports refer to “conscientious objection,” it appears that the term is being applied much more broadly to encompass those who refuse vaccinations because they are concerned about side effects or doubtful about their efficacy. Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg told a reporter, “I think the whole issue of conscientious objection has been abused and misused and really we are dealing here with people who are vaccine refusers.” [news.com.au]