Ruling Due In Midwife Abortion Case

The UK's highest court announces its decision today on a challenge against a ruling made in favour of two Catholic midwives who object to any involvement in abortion procedures.

A health authority in Scotland has urged five justices in London to overturn a decision of the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year in the case of Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, who are conscientious objectors to the process.

The case centres on the scope of the right to conscientious objection under the Abortion Act 1967, which provides that no person shall be under any duty ... to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection''.

The issue to be decided by Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Hodge is whether the women's entitlement to conscientious objection includes the entitlement to refuse to supervise staff in the provision of care to patients undergoing terminations.

They will rule on whether the relevant section of the Abortion Act entitles a labour ward co-ordinator to refuse to delegate to, supervise and/or support midwives providing care to patients undergoing termination procedures''.

The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) have warned of the implications for services if the Court of Session decision is allowed to stand.

Last April's appeal victory for the two women followed a ruling against them in 2012 in their action against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

As conscientious objectors, the women have had no direct role in pregnancy terminations.

But the senior midwifery sisters, who are in their 50s, claim they should also be entitled to refuse to delegate, supervise and support staff involved in the procedures or providing care to patients during the process.

The health board argues that conscientious objection is a right only to refuse to take part in activities that directly bring about the termination of a pregnancy.

In the appeal ruling in favour of the women, Lady Dorrian, with Lords Mackay and McEwan, said: In our view, the right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose.''

After that decision, Ms Doogan and Ms Wood voiced their delight and said the ruling affirmed the rights of all midwives to withdraw from a practice that would ''violate their conscience''.

The women were employed as labour ward co-ordinators at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow. At the time of the original ruling, Ms Doogan had been absent from work due to ill health since March 2010 and Ms Wood had been transferred to other work.

Both registered their conscientious objection to participation in pregnancy terminations years ago, under the Abortion Act, but became concerned when medical terminations were moved to the labour ward in 2007.

They said being called upon to supervise and support staff providing care to women having an abortion would amount to ''participation in treatment'' and would breach their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the original ruling against them, the judge, Lady Smith, found that the women were sufficiently removed from involvement in pregnancy terminations to afford them appropriate respect for their beliefs.