Yes we can! Successful examples of disallowing 'conscientious objection' in reproductive health care.

Reproductive health care is the only field in medicine where health care professionals (HCPs) are allowed to limit a patient's access to a legal medical treatment - usually abortion or contraception - by citing their 'freedom of conscience.' However, the authors' position is that 'conscientious objection' ('CO') in reproductive health care should be called dishonourable disobedience because it violates medical ethics and the right to lawful health care, and should therefore be disallowed. Three countries - Sweden, Finland, and Iceland - do not generally permit HCPs in the public health care system to refuse to perform a legal medical service for reasons of 'CO' when the service is part of their professional duties. The purpose of investigating the laws and experiences of these countries was to show that disallowing 'CO' is workable and beneficial. It facilitates good access to reproductive health services because it reduces barriers and delays. Other benefits include the prioritisation of evidence-based medicine, rational arguments, and democratic laws over faith-based refusals. Most notably, disallowing 'CO' protects women's basic human rights, avoiding both discrimination and harms to health. Finally, holding HCPs accountable for their professional obligations to patients does not result in negative impacts. Almost all HCPs and medical students in Sweden, Finland, and Iceland who object to abortion or contraception are able to find work in another field of medicine. The key to successfully disallowing 'CO' is a country's strong prior acceptance of women's civil rights, including their right to health care.

Determinants of emergency contraceptive use after unprotected intercourse: who seeks emergency contraception and who seeks abortion?

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in contraceptive characteristics and the knowledge of emergency contraception (EC) between women who used EC after unprotected intercourse and those who sought abortion. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey. SETTING: A Hungarian university hospital. SAMPLE: Two large clinical groups were enrolled: women who were prescribed EC after unprotected intercourse (n= 952) (EC group) and women who presented for termination of pregnancy who had not taken EC after a contraceptive failure despite being suitable candidates to take EC (n= 577) (control group). METHODS: Questionnaire evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge concerning, previous use of, and other factors related to EC use. RESULTS: The EC group experienced a condom failure significantly more often (odds ratio (OR) = 3.07), while the control group reported more failures with the contraceptive pill (OR = 0.69) and with periodic abstinence (OR = 0.09). Use of EC depended on age, education level, place of residence, accurate knowledge of EC (OR = 3.87) and previous EC use (OR = 1.16). Awareness of EC was influenced by information obtained from healthcare providers (OR = 3.63) or by school education (OR = 1.28). CONCLUSIONS: Women who use less reliable contraceptive methods should be targeted for health education that stresses the importance of reliable contraception and provides more detailed knowledge on EC and when it should be used.

There is no defence for 'Conscientious objection' in reproductive health care.

A widespread assumption has taken hold in the field of medicine that we must allow health care professionals the right to refuse treatment under the guise of 'conscientious objection' (CO), in particular for women seeking abortions. At the same time, it is widely recognized that the refusal to treat creates harm and barriers for patients receiving reproductive health care. In response, many recommendations have been put forward as solutions to limit those harms. Further, some researchers make a distinction between true CO and 'obstructionist CO', based on the motivations or actions of various objectors. This paper argues that 'CO' in reproductive health care should not be considered a right, but an unethical refusal to treat. Supporters of CO have no real defence of their stance, other than the mistaken assumption that CO in reproductive health care is the same as CO in the military, when the two have nothing in common (for example, objecting doctors are rarely disciplined, while the patient pays the price). Refusals to treat are based on non-verifiable personal beliefs, usually religious beliefs, but introducing religion into medicine undermines best practices that depend on scientific evidence and medical ethics. CO therefore represents an abandonment of professional obligations to patients. Countries should strive to reduce the number of objectors in reproductive health care as much as possible until CO can feasibly be prohibited. Several Scandinavian countries already have a successful ban on CO.