 bill which would, amongst other things, further chip away at the freedom of health practitioners to conscientiously object to participating in abortion.){kind=link}
Recently, debate commenced on the Abortion Law Amendment (Health Care Access) bill which would, amongst other things, further chip away at the freedom of health practitioners to conscientiously object to participating in abortion.
Currently medical practitioners in Australia have only a limited right to express their conscientious objection. This is because they have a legal duty to perform abortion in an emergency, notwithstanding that they might work in a Catholic hospital.
The also have a legal duty to refer a patient on to another medical practitioner whom they believe does not have a conscientious objection to the performance of the abortion.
In some states, including New South Wales, this duty to refer can be discharged in a special way that reduces the objector’s participation in abortion.
Instead of referring the patient to an abortion provider where the likelihood of abortion occurring would seem to be high, the law permits the objector to give information to the patient via a pamphlet (or otherwise inform her) of the services of the Pregnancy Choices Helpline and website.
This is a NSW government service that does not perform abortion but provides information on “all options.” Accordingly, while it may assist a pregnant woman find an abortion provider, it may also assist her to get more support if she wishes to continue the pregnancy.
Known as a “third party” referral, it reduces the objector’s co-operation in any abortion that occurs and would be described by the church as material, indirect and remote participation in evil. In certain circumstances, this level of co-operation can be morally acceptable such as where there are serious consequences for non-compliance.
The bill seeks to get rid of “third party” referral and replace it with “effective referral.” This requires objectors to share the intention of the abortion provider by locating and linking the patient up with someone who will perform that particular abortion. This is formal (implicit) co-operation in abortion and is something Catholics cannot do.
As history shows, authorities never start with imposing the most obvious and egregious form of co-operation in a particular evil on a conscientious objector. Rather, they move in increments so that people get used to making a small compromise here or there and experience a dulling of their conscience so it is easier to agree to the next level of compromise.
With abortion, they have required objectors to compromise through the current requirement for a “third party referral,” and now they wish to expand this to an “effective referral.” The final straw will be a duty on objectors to actually perform abortions or provide the prescription to obtain abortifacients so she can self-abort at home.
The contents of this bill should be distressing to all Catholic healthcare providers as well as the public at large. It undermines the concept of freedom of conscience and is a framework that can be used in the non-healthcare setting to impact other Catholic professionals. The Catholic Church and its canon law have much to say about conscience, abortion and complicity in wrongdoing.
The church should be teaching on these issues to its members but lay people also have a duty to form their conscience and work out who or what is the ultimate authority for right and wrong. The church teaches that the education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.