No Freedom Of Conscience When It Comes To Abortion

If a patient requests an abortion or advice on having an abortion, should a doctor be punished for refusing to refer that patient to another doctor who will provide the advice, or indeed, the abortion?

Victorian GP, Dr. Mark Hobart is being pursued by the state’s Medical Practitioners’ Board for precisely this reason.

Doctors in Australia who are qualified to perform surgery are generally only required by law to perform an abortion in cases when it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. However, S8 of Victoria’s Abortion Law Reform Act (2008) requires that in other circumstances, a doctor having a conscientious objection to abortion must refer a patient “to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion”.

There’s a hole in that last clause: the practitioner can claim they do not know another qualified doctor who will perform or advise on the requested abortion. This is Mark Hobart’s defence. In this particular case, an Indian couple wanted to abort a 19 week old foetus because it was female. Dr Hobart claims that he does not know of any doctor who would perform an abortion for reasons of sex selection. He may be right: Victoria’s largest abortion provider, the Fertility Control Clinic states:

“It is extremely rare for us to receive requests for gender-selection abortion and we do not acquiesce to such requests.”

It would be simple enough for a woman or couple to get around this by claiming depression and / or extreme anxiety due to not being able to cope with having a baby at this time of their life. It would also be a simple matter for the couple to just go to another GP, or look on the internet. I typed “Victoria abortion clinics” into Google. Here is what came up first.

Yet the Victorian Medical Practitioners’ Board is pursuing Mark Hobart under S8(1) on an “own motion”. That’s right … Board members have brought the complaint themselves. One might well ask how the Board can credibly act as both prosecution and judge.

In a twisted irony, Dr Hobart’s persecution ensued from his own contact with the Board: when he discovered another doctor had subsequently performed the abortion, he filed a complaint on the grounds that it was knowingly performed for the reason of sex selection, without there being a heritable, gender related condition. In response, some Board members decided to anonymously bring the “own motion” against Dr Hobart. They had no problem pandering to third world cultural practices, however.

One might also ask why the doctor’s accusers on the Board have not been forced to identify themselves. This is not how things work in an open society. A person should always have the right to know his or her accusers and the face them openly. How much weight should we place on charges when those bringing them so lack the courage of their convictions that they seek to hide behind a bureaucratic cloak of anonymity?

The lefties at Crikey have sought to make an issue of the fact that Dr Hobart is a Catholic and a member of the DLP. But so what? It is not necessary for him to detail the set of his political and religious beliefs and affiliations in order to make a philosophical argument. Should everyone commenting publicly on same sex marriage be required to state their sexual preferences?

That the writer (and editor) of one particular story did not uncover these facts is sloppy journalism. The Herald Sun made the connection. Regardless of us explicitly knowing Dr Hobart’s political and religious perspective, the motivations behind such stances are generally not difficult to guess. However, they are not the point.

If a doctor refuses to provide or even give advice on how to obtain a medical procedure which he or she deems unnecessary (or destructive) and moreover, does not seek reimbursement for the consultation, why should they face censure? This is not a case of harm to a patient ensuing from refusal of treatment. Nor is it a negligent diagnosis stemming from perverse beliefs: the doctors at the Fertility Control Clinic probably hold a substantially different set of beliefs, yet stated that neither would they perform an abortion under such circumstances.

I think Catholicism contains a plethora of perverse beliefs. However, that is not the issue in this matter. What is at issue is a professional’s right to abstain from actions which are contrary to their philosophical principles, where such abstention does no material harm.

It does not matter whether you or I agree with Mark Hobart’s principles. He is not required to agree with us either. What he is required to do, as a licenced doctor, is competently treat patients. He is not required to perform what many doctors would agree is an unnecessary surgical procedure. Nor should he be required to scout around for a doctor who would be prepared to perform such a procedure. The patient should do that for themselves.

This matter makes a good case study in the difference in approach between genuine Liberals and the left, who are not Liberal in any true sense.

The attitude of both the conservatives and (in this case) the left is: if you do not buy into our world view, you must be punished and excluded. That is how people whose positions derive from ideology rather than evidence and reason tend to react to dissent. You see the same thing with both the secular left and the religious right. Because neither can refute the dissenter with argument, they use their illegitimate power to concoct rules and procedures and use these to stifle opposing views.

The purpose of the draconian S8(1) is not to formalise a woman’s right to an abortion. The remainder of the Act achieves that. S8(1)’s purpose is to force acquiescence to the ideology of those who drafted the Act, under threat of loss of career. That is its evil.

There already exist provisions for censuring doctors who fail in their duty of care. If a patient presents with symptoms of psychological distress about their pregnancy and requests an abortion, any doctor who does not provide abortions is negligent in their duty of care if they do not properly refer the patient. This scenario is already covered under general negligence. It does not need reinforcement with S8(1).

If a patient requests an abortion for the reason of gender selection, some doctors would perform it and some would refuse on the grounds the procedure is unnecessary. Those who refuse in such circumstances should be free to do so, regardless of whether you or I agree with the underlying philosophical motivation. If the patient is not in genuine distress, there is no failure of care. The patient can go and find a doctor who will perform the abortion. Additionally, they can pay for it themselves. I have no problem with my taxes being spent on providing abortions for women who need them, but there is no way I want to fund medical procedures for “lifestyle” reasons.