[ad_1]
Silence Naidoo / Unsplash
Health professionals may have to choose between their conscience and their work, the court was told. (File photo)
A group of health professionals have gone to court for the right to have a conscientious objection to the provision of abortion services, without negatively affecting employment.
In Wellington High Court on Monday, the New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance asked Judge Rebecca Ellis to make a statement that the abortion law was inconsistent with the Rights Act.
Attorney Ian Bassett said a change to the law on March 24, 2020 raised concerns that the new law contained a “coercive” element.
For 43 years, under the previous law, abortion services were provided without coercion to healthcare professionals, Bassett said.
READ MORE:
* The select committee recommends allowing physicians to refuse contraception.
* The abortion legalization bill was made more restrictive, but remained largely unchanged after a select committee
* Who, what, when and where: An explanation of the abortion law reform
* Abortion case brought to the Human Rights Commission
Before the law changes, a professional with conscientious objection to abortion could refer a person to another doctor to see if they qualify to have an abortion without becoming part of the “chain that leads to a person’s death,” he said. Bassett.
The judge asked several questions about the difference between referring a patient then and now.
Bassett said a doctor with an objection could now stay out of the “chain” by referring a patient to a website or phone service for information.
“I understand their argument, but it has nuances, it is quite difficult to draw the line on when the participation begins,” said the judge.
Abortion services are now available to women up to 20 weeks pregnant, and after 20 weeks, a physician must reasonably believe that an abortion is clinically appropriate.
An employer providing abortion services, or referring abortion services, must accommodate conscientious objection unless it causes an “unreasonable disruption.”
The livelihood and career of a healthcare professional could be in jeopardy if an employer believed the employee’s beliefs caused an unreasonable disruption, Bassett said.
However, according to the Bill of Rights, practitioners had the right to freedom of conscience without interference, he said.
Bill of Rights The freedoms in question included freedom of speech, freedom to express belief, minority rights and freedom of association, he said.
Three health professionals have given statements to the court. The judge asked if any of them had given evidence that their conscience had been interfered with.
Bassett said there was no evidence of that in court. The three, a nurse and two doctors, did not want to be named.
The judge said it might be impossible to make a statement of inconsistency if there was no factual basis for it.
The case is expected to take about three days.
