Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion
While abortion has been legal in most developed countries for many years, the topic remains controversial. A major area of controversy concerns women’s rights vis-a-vis the rights of health professionals to opt out of providing the service on conscience grounds. Although scholars from various discip...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical ethics 2018-02, Vol.44 (2), p.104-108 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 108 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 104 |
| container_title | Journal of medical ethics |
| container_volume | 44 |
| creator | Fleming, Valerie Ramsayer, Beate Škodič Zakšek, Teja |
| description | While abortion has been legal in most developed countries for many years, the topic remains controversial. A major area of controversy concerns women’s rights vis-a-vis the rights of health professionals to opt out of providing the service on conscience grounds. Although scholars from various disciplines have addressed this issue in the literature, there is a lack of empirical research on the topic. This paper provides a documentary analysis of three examples of conscientious objection on religious grounds to performing abortion-related care by midwives in different Member States of the European Union, two of which have resulted in legal action. These examples show that as well as the laws of the respective countries and the European Union, professional and church law each played a part in the decisions made. However, support from both professional and religious sources was inconsistent both within and between the examples. The authors conclude that there is a need for clear guidelines at both local and pan-European level for health professionals and recommend a European-wide forum to develop and test them. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/medethics-2016-103529 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1924888744</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A531710740</galeid><jstor_id>26879669</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A531710740</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-8525daf53bce8d515b83892f7654ce15fc94f3632a00a9f8df4b06cba310a3803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxS0EokvhIxRF4sIlxf_jnNBq1UKlSr20Z8txJl1HSbzYDm2_PQ4pi9RTffFY85vnN3oInRF8TgiT30ZoIe2djSXFRJYEM0HrN2hDeMVKTkX1Fm0ww7KUCuMT9CHGHudDVf0enVBVCclqtUGHywDQ-rHwXWH9FK2DyULhpuJiDv4A34vtVJjJDE_RxQVK-zxQWBPh73N07YP7nesHl_ZHheT8nNtNDzaXU5F8YRoflvojeteZIcKn5_sU3V1e3O5-ltc3P6522-uy4UqkUgkqWtMJ1lhQrSCiUUzVtKuk4BaI6GzNOyYZNRibulNtxxssbWMYwYYpzE7R11X3EPyvGWLSo4sWhsFMkM1pUlOulKo4z-iXF2jv55B3jpoSUSlBFKszVa7UvRlAuynvmuAxWT8McA86m9_d6K1gpCK44osBsfI2-BgDdPoQ3GjCkyZYLxHqY4R6iVCvEea5z89u5iYTx6l_mWXgbAX6mHz435eqqqVcBPDab8b-lX_-AZNespY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2157851839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Fleming, Valerie ; Ramsayer, Beate ; Škodič Zakšek, Teja</creator><creatorcontrib>Fleming, Valerie ; Ramsayer, Beate ; Škodič Zakšek, Teja</creatorcontrib><description>While abortion has been legal in most developed countries for many years, the topic remains controversial. A major area of controversy concerns women’s rights vis-a-vis the rights of health professionals to opt out of providing the service on conscience grounds. Although scholars from various disciplines have addressed this issue in the literature, there is a lack of empirical research on the topic. This paper provides a documentary analysis of three examples of conscientious objection on religious grounds to performing abortion-related care by midwives in different Member States of the European Union, two of which have resulted in legal action. These examples show that as well as the laws of the respective countries and the European Union, professional and church law each played a part in the decisions made. However, support from both professional and religious sources was inconsistent both within and between the examples. The authors conclude that there is a need for clear guidelines at both local and pan-European level for health professionals and recommend a European-wide forum to develop and test them.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-6800</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1473-4257</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103529</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28756398</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Amicus curiae ; Canon law ; Conscientious objectors ; Councils ; Ethical aspects ; Evaluation ; Health care industry ; Human rights ; Judicial reviews ; Medical ethics ; Medical personnel ; Midwifery education ; Midwives ; Nurses ; Nursing ; Practice ; Religious orders ; Values ; Women's rights ; Womens health ; Writers</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical ethics, 2018-02, Vol.44 (2), p.104-108</ispartof><rights>Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.</rights><rights>Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018</rights><rights>2018 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-8525daf53bce8d515b83892f7654ce15fc94f3632a00a9f8df4b06cba310a3803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-8525daf53bce8d515b83892f7654ce15fc94f3632a00a9f8df4b06cba310a3803</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26879669$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26879669$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28756398$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fleming, Valerie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramsayer, Beate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Škodič Zakšek, Teja</creatorcontrib><title>Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion</title><title>Journal of medical ethics</title><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><description>While abortion has been legal in most developed countries for many years, the topic remains controversial. A major area of controversy concerns women’s rights vis-a-vis the rights of health professionals to opt out of providing the service on conscience grounds. Although scholars from various disciplines have addressed this issue in the literature, there is a lack of empirical research on the topic. This paper provides a documentary analysis of three examples of conscientious objection on religious grounds to performing abortion-related care by midwives in different Member States of the European Union, two of which have resulted in legal action. These examples show that as well as the laws of the respective countries and the European Union, professional and church law each played a part in the decisions made. However, support from both professional and religious sources was inconsistent both within and between the examples. The authors conclude that there is a need for clear guidelines at both local and pan-European level for health professionals and recommend a European-wide forum to develop and test them.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Amicus curiae</subject><subject>Canon law</subject><subject>Conscientious objectors</subject><subject>Councils</subject><subject>Ethical aspects</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Human rights</subject><subject>Judicial reviews</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Midwifery education</subject><subject>Midwives</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Religious orders</subject><subject>Values</subject><subject>Women's rights</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><subject>Writers</subject><issn>0306-6800</issn><issn>1473-4257</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU9v1DAQxS0EokvhIxRF4sIlxf_jnNBq1UKlSr20Z8txJl1HSbzYDm2_PQ4pi9RTffFY85vnN3oInRF8TgiT30ZoIe2djSXFRJYEM0HrN2hDeMVKTkX1Fm0ww7KUCuMT9CHGHudDVf0enVBVCclqtUGHywDQ-rHwXWH9FK2DyULhpuJiDv4A34vtVJjJDE_RxQVK-zxQWBPh73N07YP7nesHl_ZHheT8nNtNDzaXU5F8YRoflvojeteZIcKn5_sU3V1e3O5-ltc3P6522-uy4UqkUgkqWtMJ1lhQrSCiUUzVtKuk4BaI6GzNOyYZNRibulNtxxssbWMYwYYpzE7R11X3EPyvGWLSo4sWhsFMkM1pUlOulKo4z-iXF2jv55B3jpoSUSlBFKszVa7UvRlAuynvmuAxWT8McA86m9_d6K1gpCK44osBsfI2-BgDdPoQ3GjCkyZYLxHqY4R6iVCvEea5z89u5iYTx6l_mWXgbAX6mHz435eqqqVcBPDab8b-lX_-AZNespY</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Fleming, Valerie</creator><creator>Ramsayer, Beate</creator><creator>Škodič Zakšek, Teja</creator><general>BMJ</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion</title><author>Fleming, Valerie ; Ramsayer, Beate ; Škodič Zakšek, Teja</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-8525daf53bce8d515b83892f7654ce15fc94f3632a00a9f8df4b06cba310a3803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Amicus curiae</topic><topic>Canon law</topic><topic>Conscientious objectors</topic><topic>Councils</topic><topic>Ethical aspects</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Human rights</topic><topic>Judicial reviews</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Midwifery education</topic><topic>Midwives</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Religious orders</topic><topic>Values</topic><topic>Women's rights</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><topic>Writers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fleming, Valerie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramsayer, Beate</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Škodič Zakšek, Teja</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fleming, Valerie</au><au>Ramsayer, Beate</au><au>Škodič Zakšek, Teja</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>104</spage><epage>108</epage><pages>104-108</pages><issn>0306-6800</issn><eissn>1473-4257</eissn><abstract>While abortion has been legal in most developed countries for many years, the topic remains controversial. A major area of controversy concerns women’s rights vis-a-vis the rights of health professionals to opt out of providing the service on conscience grounds. Although scholars from various disciplines have addressed this issue in the literature, there is a lack of empirical research on the topic. This paper provides a documentary analysis of three examples of conscientious objection on religious grounds to performing abortion-related care by midwives in different Member States of the European Union, two of which have resulted in legal action. These examples show that as well as the laws of the respective countries and the European Union, professional and church law each played a part in the decisions made. However, support from both professional and religious sources was inconsistent both within and between the examples. The authors conclude that there is a need for clear guidelines at both local and pan-European level for health professionals and recommend a European-wide forum to develop and test them.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ</pub><pmid>28756398</pmid><doi>10.1136/medethics-2016-103529</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0306-6800 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical ethics, 2018-02, Vol.44 (2), p.104-108 |
| issn | 0306-6800 1473-4257 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1924888744 |
| source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Abortion Amicus curiae Canon law Conscientious objectors Councils Ethical aspects Evaluation Health care industry Human rights Judicial reviews Medical ethics Medical personnel Midwifery education Midwives Nurses Nursing Practice Religious orders Values Women's rights Womens health Writers |
| title | Freedom of conscience in Europe? An analysis of three cases of midwives with conscientious objection to abortion |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T05%3A49%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Freedom%20of%20conscience%20in%20Europe?%20An%20analysis%20of%20three%20cases%20of%20midwives%20with%20conscientious%20objection%20to%20abortion&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20ethics&rft.au=Fleming,%20Valerie&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=104&rft.epage=108&rft.pages=104-108&rft.issn=0306-6800&rft.eissn=1473-4257&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/medethics-2016-103529&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA531710740%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2157851839&rft_id=info:pmid/28756398&rft_galeid=A531710740&rft_jstor_id=26879669&rfr_iscdi=true |