Pro-choice victory on Victorian abortion bill
Problems with conscientious objection
Pro-choice campaigners in the Australian state of Victoria have emerged triumphant after the upper house of the state parliament voted to decriminalise abortion and to allow unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks. However as BioEdge went to press, debate was continuing over some of the more contentious features of the bill, including the right of conscientiuos objection. As it stands, the bill requires a doctor who objects to abortion to refer to a doctor who doesn’t. If there is an emergency, he is required to perform the abortion himself. Nurses who object will find themselves in even more difficult position, as they are required to assist in an “emergency”.
A few days before the vote, bioethicist Nicholas Tonti-Filippini criticised the bill in a seminar organised by the Australian Catholic University. He pointed out that its rejection of conscientious objection is based upon a new model of the doctor-patient relationship. “in which the fiduciary relationship within the Hippocratic tradition has been replaced by a free market model in which the buyer must beware.”
He also claimed that, in practice, objecting doctors would have to refer women to abortion clinics, since they could not be certain, as required by the bill, that other doctors would have no objection at all to abortion.
Objecting family doctors, he said, will, if the bill is passed, have to retire from medicine or face deregistration. The bill could be challenged in the High Court of Australia but medical indemnity insurers will not pay the legal bills of a doctor who has deliberately breached the law. Nor is there any certainty that the High Court will uphold the right to conscientious objection to abortion.
Michael Cook edits BioEdge, a bioethics newsletter, and MercatorNet, an on-line magazine whose focus is human dignity. He writes from Sydney, Australia.
Latest posts by Michael Cook (see all)
- How long can you put off seeing the doctor because of lockdowns? - December 3, 2021
- House of Lords debates assisted suicide—again - October 28, 2021
- Spanish government tries to restrict conscientious objection - October 28, 2021
One thought on “Pro-choice victory on Victorian abortion bill”
Comments are closed.
More Stories
Is diversity of opinion at risk in medical journals?
A couple of years ago, a new editor was appointed to one of the world’s leading medical journals, JAMA, or...
It’s time to abolish morality in bioethics, say bioethicists
The idea that morality ought to be abolished is not limited to invading armies (pick one) or child abusers or...
Former deputy editor of BioEdge to head Sydney bioethics centre
The former deputy editor of BioEdge has been appointed director of a bioethics think tank in Australia. Dr Xavier Symons,...
The medical profession needs to reflect on the crimes of Nazi doctors, says The Lancet
Medical ethics education must be informed by a robust understanding of medicine’s role within the Nazi regime, according to a...
Is the ethics of animal liberation showing its age? Is Peter Singer a closet speciesist?
The Expanding Circle (1981) is one of Peter Singer’s best-known books. In it he argues that moral progress is marked...
The responsibility of bioethicists: the case study of Yemen
With the eyes of the world on the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, there have been relatively few...
Your headline is, very unfortunately, dangerously inaccurate. The is a victory for the ANTI-choice lobby – no choice for the children to be murdered and no choice for medical personnel to follow their consciences.
PLEASE CHANGE YOUR HEADLINE. Every time pro-life people describe pro-abortion people as ‘pro-choice’ they are buying into the culture of death.
The vote in Victoria is even more disastrous than the vote that put Hitler into power. He got only about one third of the votes of the German people and probably many who voted for him didn’t have any idea of the consequences of their vote, nor were they efer asked to vote again. The Victoria legislators have deliberately and knowingly voted for evil.