Patients to come before doctors' beliefs - BMA decision welcomed

12.00.00am UTC (GMT +0000) Thu 10th Jul 2008

Welcoming the vote at the BMA conference in Edinburgh today in support of his motion that the right of doctors to refuse to treat patients through conscientious objection should be restricted to areas which Parliament has specified - such as abortion and IVF - as well as 'end of life' issues, Dr Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon who proposed the motion, said:

"This is a clear signal from the medical profession to the GMC and Parliament that doctors should not have a broad right to refuse to care for or treat patients according to their own personal beliefs or prejudices.

"Patients needing treatment for alcoholism or women who need contraception should not be faced with the possibility of a doctor refusing to treat them on religious or other grounds."

Dr Harris, a member of the BMA's Medical Ethics Committee and a representative from Oxford Division, continued:

"The Government needs to make clear that we do not want to have a pick and mix health service where patients do not know if they will get the best treatment from a doctor or be turned away on the basis of their lifestyle, marital status or other such grounds.

"Doctors, like anyone else, are entitled to hold personal views but they cannot allow those to effect the treatment that they offer patients outside of abortion, IVF and withholding and withdrawing treatment at the end of life. Doctors must understand - as the BMA does - that the duty to the patient trumps everything else. And prospective medical students need to understand that they will not be able to opt out of parts of their course."

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

1) The motion passed this morning states:

That this Meeting:

(i) supports the rights of doctors and other health care professionals to conscientiously object to carrying out, or referring directly for, certain non-emergency lawful procedures, where:

(a) such conscientious objection is recognised in statute, as in abortion and IVF;

(b) in the event of seeing a patient seeking advice on such a procedure, the doctor the doctor should tell them immediately of the existence of a conscientious objection and of their right to see another doctor, although the consultation may continue if the patient and doctor both agree;

(c) in the event of seeing a patient seeking such a procedure, the doctor must, in line with GMC guidance, tell them of their right to see another doctor and ensure that the patient has sufficient information to exercise their right; but if the patient cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor, the doctor must ensure that arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over their care.

(ii) calls on the GMC to ensure its guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice reflects this view;

(iii) calls on parliament to retain the statutory right of doctors and other health care professionals to conscientiously object in abortion and IVF services within the above limits.

2) Dr Harris has tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill for debate at report stage intending to make clear the statutory right to conscientiously object in the provision of abortion services does not extend to providing, prescribing, dispensing or administering contraception - including the morning after pill, unless parliament specifies otherwise.

Amendment of the Abortion Act 1967: conscientious objection

Dr Evan Harris

NC12

To move the following Clause:-

'(1) The Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 4(1) insert-

"(1A) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) shall not apply to the

provision, prescription, dispensing or administration of emergency

hormonal contraception or any other form of contraception by a

registered health care practitioner or registered pharmacist except where

otherwise specified in statute.

(3) In section 6, after "them:-, insert-

""registered pharmacist" means a registered pharmacist as defined under

Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)."'.