Restricting doctors' conscience

In Victoria, the abortion legislation is said to be among the worst in the world as it allows abortion up to birth (up to 24 weeks at the decision of the mother, and after 24 weeks with the authorisation of two doctors (who can be abortionists) - with reasons including the "social" circumstances of the woman. Section 5

The law makes a huge imposition of doctors who oppose abortion on conscience grounds, as it requires them to refer a woman to another doctor "who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion". Section 8.

This section needs to be changed as it infringes on the conscience of doctors.

Here are two more examples of legislation infringing on the conscience of doctors:

In the UK...
* According to a new draft guidance, ‘Personal beliefs and medical practice’, published by the General Medical Councilin the UK, doctors cannot refuse to participate in a gender re-assignment process on conscience grounds. The GMC claims this is a result of the Equality Act. The draft guidelines are currently subject to a consultation process.
* Regarding contraception, according to the draft guidance, doctors cannot choose to prescribe contraception for a married woman but not to an unmarried woman. The GMC proposes that they can refuse to prescribe any contraception on conscience grounds - but can't choose WHO to prescribe it for.
Read two reports from Dr Peter Saunders of the UK Christian Medical Fellowship - first report here, Twitter response here, follow-up article here.

In California, an openly homosexual Senator has introduced a Bill that "would threaten the right of individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions to receive therapy."
NARTH are sending a delegation to the hearing next Monday.
NARTH say "For many years gay activists have been trying to convince the public the homosexual attractions cannot be changed. Since the evidence proves otherwise, they then moved on to trying to convince us that change therapies are “dangerous”, but once again even the American Psychological Association agrees that no such evidence is available. Now in what is apparently a move of desperation they are trying to accomplish through fines and sanctions aimed directly at individual clients and their therapists what they could not accomplish through misinformation." (Read NARTH report, with link to the Bill)

Go to top