Scottish Catholic Observer

Two Catholic midwives who claim their conscientious objections over abortion procedures were egregiously disregarded have taken the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to court.

Midwifery sisters Mary Doogan, 57, and Teresa Wood, 51, say being forced to supervise staff taking part in abortions violates their human rights. The health board claims conscientious objections do not give them the right to refuse such duties.

The Court of Session in Edinburgh heard today that Ms Doogan and Mrs Wood sought during a grievance procedure to have confirmation that they were not required to delegate, supervise or support staff in the participation and care of patients through ‘the processes of medical termination of pregnancy and feticide’ but that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) rejected their application.

Both women have now gone to court seeking to have the ruling set aside in a judicial review.

They claim that the refusal to recognise their entitlement to conscientious objection was unreasonable and violated their rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Both women are midwifery sisters at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow. They are seeking a finding that their entitlement to conscientious objection to taking part in abortions in terms of the 1967 Abortion Act includes the right to refuse to delegate, supervise and support staff involved in such work.

The women said in their petition that they are practicing Catholics and that ‘they hold a religious belief that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that termination or pregnancy is a grave offence against human life.’

NHS GGC, which is contesting their action, said it recognised their right not to participate in terminations under the terms of the Abortion Act But it maintains that it decided correctly that requiring them to delegate staff to nurse woman undergoing medical terminations and to supervise and support staff undertaking that duty was lawful.

Paul Tully, the general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said SPUC was underwriting the midwives’ legal costs.

“SPUC has been in touch with the midwives over the long course of the grievance procedure,” he said. “We would emphasise that there is no suggestion that these midwives had ever treated any woman unkindly, despite what some pro-abortion groups might say about pro-life health care staff. The petitioners’ approach is one of professional and ethical integrity. SPUC Pro-life is supporting the midwives’ stance and is underwriting their legal costs.”