Emergency contraception: unresolved clinical, ethical and legal quandaries still linger.

Emergency contraception (EC) has been prescribed for decades, in order to lessen the risk of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy following unprotected intercourse, ordinary contraceptive failure, or rape. EC and the linked aspect of unintended pregnancy undoubtedly constitute highly relevant public health issues, in that they involve women's self-determination, reproductive freedom and family planning. Most European countries regulate EC access quite effectively, with solid information campaigns and supply mechanisms, based on various recommendations from international institutions herein examined. However, there is still disagreement on whether EC drugs should be available without a physician's prescription and on the reimbursement policies that should be implemented. In addition, the rights of health care professionals who object to EC on conscience grounds have been subject to considerable legal and ethical scrutiny, in light of their potential to damage patients who need EC drugs in a timely fashion. Ultimately, reproductive health, freedom and conscience-based refusal on the part of operators are elements that have proven extremely hard to reconcile; hence, it is essential to strike a reasonable balance for the sake of everyone's rights and well-being.

Accommodating conscientious objection in the midwifery workforce: a ratio-data analysis of midwives, birth and late abortions in 18 European countries in 2016.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the role of a midwife has expanded to include the provision of abortion-related care. The laws on abortion in many European countries allow for those who hold a conscientious objection to participating to refrain from such participation. However, some writers have expressed concerns that this may have a detrimental effect on the workforce and limit women's access to the service. METHOD: The aim of this study was to provide a picture of the potential exposure midwives in Europe have to late abortions, an important factor in the integration of accommodation of conscientious objection to abortion by midwives into workload planning. We collected data from Ministries of Health or government statistical departments in 32 European countries on numbers of births, abortions, late abortions and midwives in 2016. We conducted a ratio-data analysis in those countries that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 32 countries provided full data; thus, our calculations are based on a total of 4 036 633 live births, 49 834 late abortions and a total of 132 071 midwives. The calculated ratios of live births to midwife, abortions to midwife and late abortions to midwife illustrate the wide variations between countries in relation to ratios of midwives to live births (15.22-53.99) and late abortions (0.17-1.47) CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first comprehensive insight to ratios relating to birth and abortion, especially late abortion services, with regard to the midwifery workforce. It is essential to improve the reporting of abortion data and access to it within Europe to support evidence-informed decisions on optimising the contribution of the midwifery workforce especially within highly contentious fields such as abortion services. The study's findings suggest that there should be neither be any difficulty for those who are responsible for workload allocation nor compromises to a women's right to abortion services.

A Matter of Conscience: Examining the Law and Policy of Conscientious Objection in Health Care.

Conscientious objection refers to refusal by a health care provider (HCP) to provide certain treatments, including the standard of care, to a patient based upon the provider's personal, ethical, or religious beliefs. Federal and state rules regarding conscientious objection have expanded the scope of legal protections that HCPs and institutions can invoke in support of refusal. Opponents of these rules argue that allowing refusal of care deprives patients of care that conforms to professionally established guidelines, contradicts long-standing principles related to informed consent, interferes with the ability of health care facilities to provide safe and efficient care, and leaves the patient without means of redress for injury. Proponents respond that such rules are necessary to preserve the moral integrity of providers, including institutions. Although refusal rules are most often associated with abortion, some HCPs have cited moral concerns regarding contraception, sterilization, prevention/treatment of sexually transmitted infections, transition-related care for transgender individuals, medication-assisted treatment of substance use disorders, the use of artificial reproductive technologies, and patient preferences for end-of-life care. Evidence suggests that the burden of conscientious refusal falls disproportionately on vulnerable populations, and legitimate concern exists that moral disagreement is merely pretext for discrimination. A careful balance must be struck between the defending the conscience rights of HCPs and the civil rights of patients.

The inequity of conscientious objection: Refusal of emergency contraception.

In the medical field, conscientious objection is claimed by providers and pharmacists in an attempt to forgo administering select forms of sexual and reproductive healthcare services because they state it goes against their moral integrity. Such claim of conscientious objection may include refusing to administer emergency contraception to an individual with a medical need that is time-sensitive. Conscientious objection is first defined, and then a historical context is provided on the medical field's involvement with the issue. An explanation of emergency contraception's physiological effects is provided along with historical context of the use on emergency contraception in terms of United States Law. A comparison is given between the United States and other developed countries in regard to conscientious objection. Once an understanding of conscientious objection and emergency contraception is presented, arguments supporting and contradicting the claim are described. Opinions supporting conscientious objection include the support of moral integrity, religious diversity, and less regulation on government involvement in state law will be offered. Finally, arguments against the effects of conscientious objection with emergency contraception are explained in terms of financial implications and other repercussions for people in lower socioeconomic status groups, especially people of color. Although every clinician has the right and responsibility to treat according to their sense of responsibility or conscience, the ethical consequences of living by one's conscience are limiting and negatively impact underprivileged groups of people. It is the aim of this article to advocate against the use of provider's and pharmacist's right to claim conscientious objection due to the inequitable impact the practice has on people of color and individuals with lower incomes.

Antigone Betrayed? The European Court of Human Rights' Decisions on Conscientious Objection to Abortion in the Cases of Grimmark v. Sweden and Steen v. Sweden.

The article deals with the recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of two Swedish midwives who claimed a right to conscientious objection to abortion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). After giving an overview of the relevant previous case-law of the Court, I argue that the decisions of inadmissibility in the midwives' cases are a step backwards in the promising evolution of the Court's jurisprudence that began with the judgments in the cases of Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom and Bayatyan v. Armenia. In particular, the Court's reasoning in Grimmark v. Sweden and Steen v. Sweden failed to take into consideration the existence of a European consensus and the fact that less restrictive alternatives could have reasonably accommodated the conscientious claims of the two applicants.

Conscientious object in nursing: Regulations and practice in two European countries.

BACKGROUND: The concept of conscientious objection is well described; however, because of its nature, little is known about real experiences of nursing professionals who apply objections in their practice. Extended roles in nursing indicate that clinical and value-based dilemmas are becoming increasingly common. In addition, the migration trends of the nursing workforce have increased the need for the mutual understanding of culturally based assumptions on aspects of health care delivery. AIM: To present (a) the arguments for and against conscientious objection in nursing practice, (b) a description of current regulations and practice regarding conscientious objection in nursing in Poland and the United Kingdom, and (c) to offer a balanced view regarding the application of conscientious objection in clinical nursing practice. DESIGN: Discussion paper. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical guidelines has been followed at each stage of this study. FINDINGS: Strong arguments exist both for and against conscientious objection in nursing which are underpinned by empirical research from across Europe. Arguments against conscientious objection relate less to it as a concept, but rather in regard to organisational aspects of its application and different mechanisms which could be introduced in order to reach the balance between professional and patient's rights. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Debate regarding conscientious objection is vivid, and there is consensus that the right to objection among nurses is an important, acknowledged part of nursing practice. Regulation in the United Kingdom is limited to reproductive health, while in Poland, there are no specific procedures to which nurses can apply an objection. The same obligations of those who express conscientious objection apply in both countries, including the requirement to share information with a line manager, the patient, documentation of the objection and necessity to indicate the possibility of receiving care from other nurses. Using Poland and the United Kingdom as case study countries, this article offers a balanced view regarding the application of conscientious objection in clinical nursing practice.

Reasonable Accommodation of Conscientious Objection in Health Care Is Morally and Legally Required.

While mainstream, establishment medical journals have published opinion pieces condemning conscientious refusals in medical care, American law has consistently and repeatedly supported a right to such refusals. Law has not relied on a particular philosophical basis for health care. Indeed, legal precedents reject any monolithic model, whether based on consumerism or on professional obligations. Law focuses on the coexistence of diverse understandings, motivations, and delivery models. Scholarly approaches tend to ignore the fact that, fundamentally, conscientious objection involves a minority telling the majority that the objector(s) cannot ethically participate according to the majority's preferred model or set of rules. Religious liberty is protected in the US by applying strict scrutiny. Any governmental burden on religious liberty must further a compelling governmental interest and be implemented using the least restrictive means reasonably available. After years of scholarly controversy, strict scrutiny continues to be the law. The moral basis for the legal right of conscientious objection has been affirmed and expanded by Hobby Lobby in 2014, outlined in an Attorney General Memorandum in 2017, and codified in a Final Conscience Rule by the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2019.

Trump Administration Opens Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom.

In controversial move, federal health department signals shift in civil rights focus.

Legal barriers to access abortion services through a human rights lens: the Uruguayan experience.

Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) has increasingly gained importance in the field of international human rights law. The work of the United Nations (UN) bodies, in particular the recently adopted General Comment 22 (GC 22), has been instrumental in signalling the importance of the SRH legal framework and in setting clear guidelines to steer countries into enacting/modifying/repealing national laws in order to comply with their international obligations vis-à-vis SRH. Although within the region Uruguay is regarded as a pioneer in terms of women's status and rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, evidence points to a number of challenges. This article explores the extent to which the Uruguayan abortion law complies with the country's international human rights obligations as conceptualised by GC 22. It uses the Uruguayan abortion law, its regulatory decree, and the highest administrative court's decision in Alonso et al v. Poder Ejecutivo as the main pivots for the discussion. The results reveal that - in spite of the praise it receives at the international level and the adoption of a less restrictive abortion law - Uruguay has fallen short in adopting a legal framework that complies with the international standards and guarantees effective access to abortion services.