A disturbing trend is emerging in the writings of those opposed to legal abortion. Since the passage of Victoria’s Law Reform Act last year, they have been campaigning against the limits the new law imposes on the rights of healthcare professionals to conscientiously object to involvement in abortion.
From Liberal Senator Julian McGauran’s most recent contribution in Quadrant, to previous pieces by Father Frank Brennan (chair of the National Human Rights Consultation), Martin Laverty (CEO of Catholic Health Australia) and Doctor’s in Conscience’s Eamonn Mathieson, opponents of legal abortion argue that rights of medical professionals and Catholic health institutions to refuse care to women seeking abortions is absolute. Even where such denial could see a woman die, they maintain that refusing to provide an abortion is the right, and their right, to do.
There is much that is offensive, even shocking, about the absolutist nature of such assertions. However important is religious freedom, it does not trump other rights. However important medical professionals are, their rights are no weightier than those held by others — certainly not their patients to whom they owe a duty of care. In fact, even if religious and conscience rights were trumping, there’s still arguments about whose religion or conscience — the doctor’s or the woman’s — should prevail when conflicts arise over abortion care.
Where the rights of women seeking abortions are taken seriously (and these include their right to follow the dictates of their conscience, to informed decision making about their health, to timely medical care and to life), the absolutist approach seems inadequate at best. At worst, it seems to disregard the pregnant woman’s basic humanity.
Perhaps this fact is why most of those arguing for a change to Victoria’s conscience clause rarely mention women by name. They don’t directly say, “we don’t care if women die, doctors conscience rights are supreme”.
Rather they condemn the new law’s “coercion” of individual health workers and healthcare organisations to act contrary to their consciences by requiring “participation in abortion through … direct assistance.” They declaim with high dugeon the “extraordinary attempt by pro-abortion legislators” to threaten the livelihoods health practitioners who “are unwilling to … perform an abortion,” but never mention that the only compulsion to provide abortion in the Victorian legislation is in an emergency where it is necessary to preserve a woman’s life.
The conscience clause in Victoria’s new abortion law requires just two things from doctor’s wanting to be excused from what the Victorian Law Reform Commission described as the “general expectation that practitioners will provide medical services”.
The first is that they don’t exercise this freedom at the cost of a woman’s life. The second is that they ensure their refusal to provide timely medical care doesn’t translate into her inability to get timely medical care by providing an effective referral.
For those willing to mention women by name, this seems the least they can do. After all, women have rights, too.
Dr Leslie Cannold is a medical ethicist and president of Pro Choice Victoria, a grass-roots organisation that supported the removal of abortion from Victoria’s criminal code.
Good on you Leslie!!!!
Gosh, I’m so tired of religious do-gooders (mostly men too it seems in this case…….) trying to impose their beliefs and ideas on the rest of us – as Leslie points out, there is a conscience clause in the legislation – so get over it!
Yes Leslie, good on you! This is so tedious, unjust and misogynist. There’s an ingrained dislike, hatred of women by some men, and too many of them are in positions of some power. I’ve had personal experience of the Catholic church’s destructive and inhumane treatment and attidues towards women.
My first 2 children were born 11 months, 2 weeks and 6 days apart. I arrived home from hospital with my 2nd child in time for my first child’s 1st birthday. I loved them both dearly, wouldn’t be without them, but shouldn’t have had them so close together. I had morning sickness for 9 months. I sought the advice of 5 priests while pregnant the 2nd time, and got 5 different answers. I finally took charge of my own health, and told my doctor I wanted the pill – I took the script home with me.
4 yrs later I had another child, which caused a severe prolapse of my bladder. (and this is the awful bit.) My urologist at that time was a Catholic. His wife had given birth to about 8 kids? He wouldn’t operate as he said it would ‘spoil my husband’s sex life’? No concern for mine, obviously. I wanted a tubal ligation also, as I’d been told it was dangerous to have any more children. Two years of absolute pain, constant bladder infections and misery went by, until once again, I took charge, made an appointment to see a gynaecologist and then asked for the referral. He agreed with diagnosis, was sympathetic and understanding, agreed to do the tubal ligation even though I was only 25 and it was done. I think I cried with relief and gratitude! I’d been accused of not liking children; what if one of my children died, or my husband; I hadn’t thought it through blah blah!
Some time later, a conversation with my Mum revealed, that she’d thought I’d had a hysterectomy, which was apparently OK, but told me, that if I died in childbirth I’d go straight to heaven!!!!No mention of who’d mother my present children, let alone a new baby! Amazing! I told her it was my business and my decision, as it was my health and my family. Also, 3 kids were more than enough to provide for. That was about 38 yrs ago, but sadly, nothing much has changed. My sympathies are with the pregnant woman every time. I’ve not found one woman who’s decided to have a termination arrive at that decision without a lot of thought and heartache. If the Church wants to be helpful, instead of investing millions in property etc, they could spend more on providing facilities for children with disabilities, and respite for their parents. There could also be a paid program of community education re how difficult it is to look after a child with many difficulties and disabilities. Sadly, community attitudes can be cruel and thoughtless, but of course priests and other men without this struggle, never counter this.
I think the Catholic Church should butt out of women’s lives. They don’t have a bloody clue about raising kids, having a relationship let alone being pregnant as well. Money isn’t a problem either, as priests seem to be able to fly around the world at will, and I haven’t heard of them being in danger of losing their homes due to the GFC etc?
Their attitudes to contraception is criminal in my view. They should be charged with crimes against humanity for the trauma they cause women and their families, not to mention their disgraceful and lying attitude to condoms, particularly in impoverished countries. They’ve contributed to the horrific stats re HIV/Aids in Africa and other countries.
When Fr Frank Brennan and Julian McGouran and their misogynist mates are pregnant for the first time, they’ll have the right to have their views aired, until then, they can undertake to stop all violence against women, and their current attitudes re women’s fertility is a major form of it. Of course, they’ve both offered to step up and care for these babies for the rest of their lives. What about the woman’s right to life? Women are an expendable commodity in the catholic church – always have been, and I don’t see any change happening soon!
I am sorry you had to fight the grain so much with decisions, that I believe are the most ethical and considered. You have a right to live and have a good quality if life. I respect each and every decision you made and thank you for speaking out about your experiences.
I completely agree with you that the Catholic church is a religion that was not constructed for the equity of non (white) males. One silver lining is knowing that Australia is becoming less and less religious.
I only hope that big tech companies like twitter, look into their own demographic biases and continuously make weighted ethical decisions based on more than just a singular demographics response, say like a group of white dudes sitting In an office talking about the objectivity of computers.
Liz, what an amazing story – sadly not an uncommon one either I would think….
Well said – lets see anyone argue with that!!!!
If institutions or medicos have the right to conscientiously object and not perform a duty, then perhaps our secular funding system should recognise their unique place in the system by cutting off public funding.
Why should my taxes support anything but a system that cares for all?
Dear liz45
Thank you for sharing your amazing tale. As a man I am as astounded how many of my fellow men need to interfere with a womans choice as I am with how many of my fellow heterosexuals have opinions on homosexuality. Until it concerns me (in that I am the father) I have no say. Even then I believe I am limited as it is not my body.
I was once steadfast in my belief that life has a starting line called Birth. That was until a friend relayed to me that when he felt his child kick then he could not say his child was not alive. I dont know.
Do any christians celebrate in May the inception of Christ? If they do i am unaware.