Abortion and Conscientious Objection Article Reference: Nucleus, January 2001, pp4-6; Author: Helen Barratt The case of a junior doctor denied a post on the General Practice Training Scheme because he refused to clerk patients for elective abortions has caused a media storm in Scotland, re-igniting the debate about abortion and conscientious objection. Dr Everett Julyan, a member of CMF, said that two members of the panel had told him privately after the interview that he had failed to win the SHO post solely because of his views on abortion. When asked during the interview at the North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust in March this year, Dr Julyan told the panel that he would neither perform abortions nor prepare patients for the procedure on the grounds of his beliefs. The trust has subsequently been forced to admit that 'inappropriate questions may have been asked' and they claim that in the light of the incident they are reviewing their interview procedure. Alan Boyter, director of human resources at Glasgow Royal Infirmary said: 'There is no policy to stop candidates with conscientious objections from working in our department.' However, he argued that it was 'wholly reasonable' for the department to find out a doctor's views on abortion, given the large number of terminations carried out by the department [1] to the Scottish parliament prior to this incident.[5] Dr Julyan's case was taken to the Scottish Executive by Gordon MacDonald from the Christian charity CARE who also called for the Executive to issue definitive instructions to Trusts, as the NHS Executive had in England. The Scottish Executive is now consulting the medical profession on whether guidelines similar to those in England and Wales should be issued in Scotland. Our Response Given the increasing acceptance of abortion in our society and the corresponding decline in morals, it is inevitable that many of us entering the medical profession will face discrimination and perhaps even dismissal because of our personal beliefs. However as Christians, we must seek to hold onto the strong convictions and biblical principles we have now, whatever the cost, and not let them be eroded away by our society. We believe that it is God himself who puts human authorities in place but, whilst he expects us to obey them,[6] our obedience to him must take precedence if there is a conflict. If we believe that abortion is ethically unacceptable and that we should not be party to the shedding of innocent blood in this way, we must obey God first, regardless of what the rules and regulations say.[7] To disobey God for fear of losing career, reputation or respect is surely to make gods of these things - something else we are clearly exhorted not to do.[8] Even if we take no part in the abortion procedure itself, we are surely also giving our tacit approval to the process, however unintentional, by filling out authorisation forms or preparing patients. References Doctor rejected for his conscience. Scottish Daily Mail 2000; 7 October Medical Ethics Today: Its practice and philosophy. BMA's Ethics, Science and Information Division. 1993. BMA. pp107-109. Janaway v Salford Health Authority [1989] AC, [1988] 3 All ER 1079 (HL). Burton E. Fergusson A. Members' Attitudes to Abortion: a survey of reported views and practice. Christian Medical Fellowship. July 1996. Macdonell H. Guidelines call after doctor lost out on job over abortion beliefs. Daily Mail 2000; 9 October Rom 13:1-2 Acts 5:29 Dt 5:7 abortion index resource centre Copyright ©2002 Christian Medical Fellowship. Comments, suggestions, information: email webmaster@ethicsforschools.org CMF is a registered charity (No 1039823)