Doctrine in the House
I wrote about this important case before these religiously motivated midwives took their argument to the UK Supreme Court where Lady Hale came to a very sensible, measured judgment in which she decided that 'participating' means taking part in a hands-on capacity.
So shame on these midwives for their behaviour which if you ask me, was tantamount to holding NHS patients and other staff to ransom over their religious beliefs.
Concepta Wood and Mary Doogan have lost their case at the UK Supreme Court
The UK's highest court has told two Catholic midwives they do not have the right to avoid supervising other nurses involved in abortion procedures.
The Supreme Court in London ruled that Mary Doogan and Connie Wood should have to support staff who are caring for patients having terminations.
The midwives previously won their case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's appeal said the right to abstain should only extend to treatment ending a pregnancy.
Ms Doogan, from Garrowhill in Glasgow, and Mrs Wood, from Clarkston in East Renfrewshire, were employed as labour ward co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.
Other rulings
They challenged whether NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) could require them to delegate, supervise and support staff who were involved in carrying out abortions.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh initially ruled in 2012 that their human rights had not been violated as they were not directly involved in terminations.
At the time, judge Lady Smith said: "Nothing they have to do as part of their duties terminates a woman's pregnancy.
"They are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as, it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for and accommodation of their beliefs."
But last year, appeal court judges overturned Lady Smith's judgement, ruling the "right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose".
NHS GGC later asked the Supreme Court to examine whether section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967, which provides that "no person shall be under any duty... to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection", extends to labour ward co-ordinators.
The UK's highest court has told two Catholic midwives they do not have the right to avoid supervising other nurses involved in abortion procedures.
The Supreme Court in London ruled that Mary Doogan and Connie Wood should have to support staff who are caring for patients having terminations.
The midwives previously won their case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's appeal said the right to abstain should only extend to treatment ending a pregnancy.
Ms Doogan, from Garrowhill in Glasgow, and Mrs Wood, from Clarkston in East Renfrewshire, were employed as labour ward co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.
Other rulings
They challenged whether NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) could require them to delegate, supervise and support staff who were involved in carrying out abortions.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh initially ruled in 2012 that their human rights had not been violated as they were not directly involved in terminations.
At the time, judge Lady Smith said: "Nothing they have to do as part of their duties terminates a woman's pregnancy.
"They are sufficiently removed from direct involvement as, it seems to me, to afford appropriate respect for and accommodation of their beliefs."
But last year, appeal court judges overturned Lady Smith's judgement, ruling the "right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose".
NHS GGC later asked the Supreme Court to examine whether section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967, which provides that "no person shall be under any duty... to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection", extends to labour ward co-ordinators.
ANALYSIS
Eleanor Bradford, BBC Scotland Health Correspondent
The Abortion Act of 1967 gives staff the right to conscientiously object to participating in abortions - the question at the centre of this case was: What constitutes participation?
Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood wanted to be absolved from anything which led to a termination, including managing junior staff who were treating women having terminations.
Their employer, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, argued that this would make staffing a hospital impossible, and that it was not unreasonable to ask them to carry out managerial duties.
What is surprising is that there have been so few challenges over more than four decades to this section of the Abortion Act. This judgement brings some clarity to what has been a grey area.
The Supreme Court decided that the right to conscientious objection did not extend to the the labour ward co-ordinators.
Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said: "Parliament will not have had in mind the hospital managers who decide to offer an abortion service, the administrators who decide how best that service can be organised within the hospital, the caterers who provide the patients with food and the cleaners who provide them with a safe and hygienic environment.
"Yet, all may be said in some way to be facilitating the carrying out of the treatment involved.
"The managerial and supervisory tasks carried out by the labour ward co-ordinators are closer to these roles than they are to the role of providing the treatment which brings about the termination of the pregnancy. 'Participate' in my view means taking part in a 'hands-on' capacity."
'Women deserve better'
The health board's appeal was backed by both the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which said they were "deeply concerned" at the right to conscientious objection being extended.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS, welcomed the ruling and said: "BPAS supports the right to refuse to work in abortion care, not least because women deserve better than being treated by those who object to their choice. But the law as it stands already provides healthcare workers with these protections.
"Extending this protection to tasks not directly related to the abortion would be to the detriment of women needing to end a pregnancy and the healthcare staff committed to providing that care.
"There are enough barriers in the way of women who need an abortion without further obstacles being thrown in their way."
Gillian Smith, RCM director for Scotland, said: "This ruling is sensible and both women and midwives will welcome it.
"The ruling gives extensive definition to complex clinical and other situations, in regard to whether conscientious objection applies or not.
"Midwives and other clinicians will benefit from this ruling's clarity and women will be able to continue to exercise their choice over their reproductive rights."
Eleanor Bradford, BBC Scotland Health Correspondent
The Abortion Act of 1967 gives staff the right to conscientiously object to participating in abortions - the question at the centre of this case was: What constitutes participation?
Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood wanted to be absolved from anything which led to a termination, including managing junior staff who were treating women having terminations.
Their employer, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, argued that this would make staffing a hospital impossible, and that it was not unreasonable to ask them to carry out managerial duties.
What is surprising is that there have been so few challenges over more than four decades to this section of the Abortion Act. This judgement brings some clarity to what has been a grey area.
The Supreme Court decided that the right to conscientious objection did not extend to the the labour ward co-ordinators.
Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said: "Parliament will not have had in mind the hospital managers who decide to offer an abortion service, the administrators who decide how best that service can be organised within the hospital, the caterers who provide the patients with food and the cleaners who provide them with a safe and hygienic environment.
"Yet, all may be said in some way to be facilitating the carrying out of the treatment involved.
"The managerial and supervisory tasks carried out by the labour ward co-ordinators are closer to these roles than they are to the role of providing the treatment which brings about the termination of the pregnancy. 'Participate' in my view means taking part in a 'hands-on' capacity."
'Women deserve better'
The health board's appeal was backed by both the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which said they were "deeply concerned" at the right to conscientious objection being extended.
Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS, welcomed the ruling and said: "BPAS supports the right to refuse to work in abortion care, not least because women deserve better than being treated by those who object to their choice. But the law as it stands already provides healthcare workers with these protections.
"Extending this protection to tasks not directly related to the abortion would be to the detriment of women needing to end a pregnancy and the healthcare staff committed to providing that care.
"There are enough barriers in the way of women who need an abortion without further obstacles being thrown in their way."
Gillian Smith, RCM director for Scotland, said: "This ruling is sensible and both women and midwives will welcome it.
"The ruling gives extensive definition to complex clinical and other situations, in regard to whether conscientious objection applies or not.
"Midwives and other clinicians will benefit from this ruling's clarity and women will be able to continue to exercise their choice over their reproductive rights."
Doctrine in the House (7 March 2012)
Imagine that an NHS doctor - a Jehovah's Witness convert - woke up one day and decided to mount a legal challenge - against being required to work with blood or blood products in one of our hospitals.
The logic of the challenge would be that blood transfusions and suchlike are against the religious beliefs of Jehovah Witnesses - and that to compel a nurse to deny their religious beliefs would be to trample all over their human rights.
Maybe the same thing could happen in a totally different kind of scenario - one where a member of hospital staff refused to be involved in the treatment of somone who is gay or lesbian - for example.
Again on the gounds that their deeplyheld religious beliefs outlaw such behaviour - which might even be proscribed in Holy Books - which some people believe to be the literal word of God, of course.
In other words that their religious convictions should allow such staff a veto effectively - on whether they should be required to care for certain categories of patients.
Far fetched?
I don't think so - because just last week two Catholic midwives in Scotland challenged the NHS over whether or not they were required to be involved - even indirectly - in the care of women using abortion services.
Here's an extract of the BBC's report on the case:
The midwifery sisters were employed as labour ward co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.
The women had given notice of their conscientious objection under the abortion legislation many years ago, but became concerned when all medical terminations were moved to the labour ward in 2007.
They claimed that previously they were not called on to delegate, supervise or support staff engaged in the care of patients undergoing terminations, although the health authority disputed this.
The health board maintained that the Abortion Act did not confer on the midwives any right to refuse to delegate, support or supervise staff providing nursing care for women going through abortions.
The case was dismissed in the courts - I'm pleased to say.
In my experience the NHS does have a proper regard for the religious and cultural sensitivites of staff - where that's appropriate.
But when push comes to shove the interests of patients must surely come first - othwerwise it's a very slippery slope on which to organise care in our hospitals - and elsewhere.
The logic of the challenge would be that blood transfusions and suchlike are against the religious beliefs of Jehovah Witnesses - and that to compel a nurse to deny their religious beliefs would be to trample all over their human rights.
Maybe the same thing could happen in a totally different kind of scenario - one where a member of hospital staff refused to be involved in the treatment of somone who is gay or lesbian - for example.
Again on the gounds that their deeplyheld religious beliefs outlaw such behaviour - which might even be proscribed in Holy Books - which some people believe to be the literal word of God, of course.
In other words that their religious convictions should allow such staff a veto effectively - on whether they should be required to care for certain categories of patients.
Far fetched?
I don't think so - because just last week two Catholic midwives in Scotland challenged the NHS over whether or not they were required to be involved - even indirectly - in the care of women using abortion services.
Here's an extract of the BBC's report on the case:
The midwifery sisters were employed as labour ward co-ordinators at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow.
The women had given notice of their conscientious objection under the abortion legislation many years ago, but became concerned when all medical terminations were moved to the labour ward in 2007.
They claimed that previously they were not called on to delegate, supervise or support staff engaged in the care of patients undergoing terminations, although the health authority disputed this.
The health board maintained that the Abortion Act did not confer on the midwives any right to refuse to delegate, support or supervise staff providing nursing care for women going through abortions.
The case was dismissed in the courts - I'm pleased to say.
In my experience the NHS does have a proper regard for the religious and cultural sensitivites of staff - where that's appropriate.
But when push comes to shove the interests of patients must surely come first - othwerwise it's a very slippery slope on which to organise care in our hospitals - and elsewhere.
