Choosing to Provide: Early Medical Abortion and Clinician Conscience in Ireland.

Providers are essential to the delivery of abortion care. Yet, they often occupy an ambiguous space in political discourse around abortion. The introduction of a new abortion service in Ireland invites us to look afresh at providers. Since the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 came into force, by far the most common form of abortion care has been early medical abortion (EMA). This is typically provided by General Practitioners (GPs), with approximately 10% of GPs having chosen to provide EMA. This article draws on an empirical study of providers to investigate their motivations for, and experiences of, provision and their views on colleagues who have not chosen to provide. The study shows that for many providers, the choice to provide was grounded in a moral commitment to protecting women's rights to autonomy and health and ensuring that the harms of the past were not repeated. The article argues that notwithstanding increased normalisation of EMA in Ireland, conscience still has a role to play in abortion care provision and it is important to reflect on the various aspects of this role.

Conscientious Objection to Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Plastic Surgery and Urology Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Medical conscientious objection is a federally protected right of physicians to refuse participation in medically indicated services or research activities that are incompatible with their ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. Individual provider objections to gender-affirming surgery have been documented, however the prevalence of such objections is unknown. Our study aimed to characterize physician objections to gender-affirming surgery in plastic surgery and urology residencies and to assess related institutional policies. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was administered to program leadership of 239 accredited US plastic surgery and urology residencies from February to October 2023. Trainee exposure to gender-affirming surgery, programmatic experience with objections, and presence and content of institutional objection policies were collected. Bivariate analyses were performed to determine associations with objectors. RESULTS: One-hundred and twenty-four plastic surgery (n = 59) and urology (n = 65) residencies completed the survey, representing a 52% response rate. Most programs included didactic training (n = 107, 86%) and direct clinical exposure (n = 98, 79%) to gender-affirming surgery. Few (n = 24, 19%) endorsed existent objection policies. Sixteen programs (13%) experienced objections to gender-affirming surgery by trainees (n = 15), faculty (n = 6), and staff (n = 1). Neither geographic region, exposure to gender-affirming surgery, nor presence of objection policies significantly contributed to programmatic objections. Programs with formal objection policies reported increased confidence in addressing future objection events (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Objection to gender-affirming surgery is a rare, but plausible occurrence amongst plastic surgery and urology trainees. Residency programs should consider anticipatory policies to protect patients and, when feasible, provide reasonable accommodations for objecting trainees.

Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience.

"Conscientious provision" refers to situations in which clinicians wish to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments prohibited within their (usually Catholic) health care institutions. It mirrors "conscientious objection," which refers to situations in which clinicians refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments offered within their (usually secular) health care institutions. Conscientious provision is not protected by law, but conscientious objection is. In practice, this asymmetry privileges conservative religious or moral values (usually associated with objection) over secular moral values (usually associated with provision). In this article, we first argue for a legal right to one kind of conscientious provision: referral for procedures prohibited at Catholic hospitals. We then argue that a premise in that argument-the principle of comparably trivial institutional burdens-justifies legal protections for some additional forms of conscientious provision that include, for example, writing prescriptions for contraception or medical abortions. However, this principle cannot justify legal protections for other forms of conscientious provision, for instance, the right to perform surgical abortions or gender-affirming hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals.

Conscientious Objection.

Physicians may under some circumstances decline to provide a clinical service that is within accepted medical standards due to a deeply held moral belief that to do so would be wrong. Conscience objection in medicine is legally protected, but ethically limited by physician obligations to put patient interests first. Accommodation to conscientious objections, when possible, recognizes the diverse moral perspectives and benefits for both the objectors and the profession as a whole. When these situations arise, physicians have obligations to respectfully resolve the distress of conscientious objectors while still honoring the primacy of patient care needs.

Conflictos éticos en un contexto de gestión pública: objeción de conciencia y aborto en la red sanitaria pública española

En este artículo se sostiene, en primer lugar, que (1) la persistencia a nivel internacional de debates éticos en torno al estatus moral del nasciturus y (2) el tradicional compromiso deontológico de los profesionales sanitarios con la salud, tanto de la embarazada como del hijo que espera, dotan de pleno sentido y vigencia al derecho a la objeción de conciencia de dichos profesionales. Sin embargo, donde el aborto legal se configura como prestación sanitaria, surge entonces la dificultad de gestionar esa prestación y, al tiempo, el conflicto moral que expresa la objeción de conciencia. Si en una institución sanitaria pública la objeción es generalizada, se plantea una disyuntiva con implicaciones éticas entre derivar a las gestantes a otras instituciones o aplicar estrategias de integración de personal a nivel de servicio de salud. En el caso de España, se ha aprobado este año una reforma de la Ley Orgánica de salud sexual y reproductiva y de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo (LOSSRIVE), que manifiesta una voluntad más taxativa de que la objeción de conciencia no impida el acceso al aborto en las instituciones sanitarias públicas, estableciéndose previsiones específicas al efecto. A partir de los trabajos parlamentarios identificamos los principales puntos de discrepancia política que remiten a dispares posiciones de fondo sobre el aborto y afectan al propio planteamiento de la reforma, así como a otros elementos no siempre novedosos -algunos de ellos ya estaban en la LOSSRIVE o se venían aplicando a nivel autonómico con el plácet del Constitucional.

This article argues, first, that (1) the persistence at the international level of ethical debates on the moral status of nasciturus and (2) the traditional ethical commitment of health professionals to the health of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child, give full sense and validity to the right to conscientious objection of these professionals. However, where legal abortion is configured as a health care service, the difficulty of managing this service and, at the same time, the moral conflict expressed by conscientious objection arises. If, in a public health institution, objection is widespread, there is a dilemma with ethical implications between referring pregnant women to other institutions or implementing staff integration strategies at the health service level. In the case of Spain, a reform of the Organic Law on Sexual and Reproductive Health and the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (LOSSRIVE) was approved this year, which shows a more stringent willingness that conscientious objection does not prevent access to abortion in public health institutions, establishing specific provisions to that effect. Based on the parliamentary work, we identified the main points of political discrepancy, which remit to different basic positions on abortion and affect the very approach of the reform, as well as other not always new elements -some of them were already in the LOSSRIVE or were already being applied at the regional level with the approval of the Constitutional Court.

Este artigo argumenta, em primeiro lugar, que (1) a persistência, em nível internacional, de debates éticos sobre o status moral do nascituro e (2) o tradicional compromisso deontológico dos profissionais de saúde com a saúde da gestante e do filho que ela espera, dão pleno sentido e vigência ao direito à objeção de consciência desses profissionais. Entretanto, quando o aborto legal é configurado como um serviço de saúde, surge a dificuldade de gerir esse serviço e, ao mesmo tempo, gerir o conflito moral expresso pela objeção de consciência. Se, em uma instituição de saúde pública, a objeção for generalizada, haverá uma escolha com implicações éticas entre encaminhar as gestantes a outras instituições ou aplicar estratégias de integração de pessoal no nível do serviço de saúde. No caso da Espanha, foi aprovada este ano uma reforma da Lei Orgânica de Saúde Sexual e Reprodutiva e a Interrupção Voluntária da Gravidez (LOSSRIVE) que expressa uma vontade mais constrangedora de garantir que a objeção de consciência não impeça o acesso ao aborto em instituições públicas de saúde, estabelecendo disposições específicas para esse fim. Com base no trabalho parlamentar, identificamos os principais pontos de discrepância política, que remetem a diferentes posições de fundo sobre aborto e afetam a própria aproximação da reforma, assim como outros elementos que nem sempre são novos -alguns deles já estavam no LOSSRIVE ou já estavam sendo aplicados em nível regional com a aprovação do Tribunal Constitucional-.

Three Arguments Against Institutional Conscientious Objection, and Why They Are (Metaphysically) Unconvincing.

The past decade has seen a burgeoning of scholarly interest in conscientious objection in healthcare. While the literature to date has focused primarily on individual healthcare practitioners who object to participation in morally controversial procedures, in this article we consider a different albeit related issue, namely, whether publicly funded healthcare institutions should be required to provide morally controversial services such as abortions, emergency contraception, voluntary sterilizations, and voluntary euthanasia. Substantive debates about institutional responsibility have remained largely at the level of first-order ethical debate over medical practices which institutions have refused to offer; in this article, we argue that more fundamental questions about the metaphysics of institutions provide a neglected avenue for understanding the basis of institutional conscientious objection. To do so, we articulate a metaphysical model of institutional conscience, and consider three well-known arguments for undermining institutional conscientious objection in light of this model. We show how our metaphysical analysis of institutions creates difficulties for justifying sanctions on institutions that conscientiously object. Thus, we argue, questions about the metaphysics of institutions are deserving of serious attention from both critics and defenders of institutional conscientious objection.

Guidelines for conscientious objection in Spain: a proposal involving prerequisites and protocolized procedure.

Healthcare professionals often face ethical conflicts and challenges related to decision-making that have necessitated consideration of the use of conscientious objection (CO). No current guidelines exist within Spain's healthcare system regarding acceptable rationales for CO, the appropriate application of CO, or practical means to support healthcare professionals who wish to become conscientious objectors. As such, a procedural framework is needed that not only assures the appropriate use of CO by healthcare professionals but also demonstrates its ethical validity, legislative compliance through protection of moral freedoms and patients' rights to receive health care. Our proposal consists of prerequisites of eligibility for CO (individual reference, specific clinical context, ethical justification, assurance of non-discrimination, professional consistency, attitude of mutual respect, assurance of patient rights and safety) and a procedural process (notification and preparation, documentation and confidentiality, evaluation of prerequisites, non-abandonment, transparency, allowance for unforeseen objection, compensatory responsibilities, access to guidance and/or consultative advice, and organizational guarantee of professional substitution). We illustrate the real-world utility of the proposed framework through a case discussion in which our guidelines are applied.

Conscientious objection - a cross-sectional, vignette-based, mixed methods exploration of Australian pharmacists' perspectives.

Background: Conscientious objection (CO) in healthcare is a controversial topic. Some perceive CO as freedom of conscience, others believe their professional duty-of-care overrides personal-perspectives. There is a paucity of literature pertaining to pharmacists' perspectives on CO. Aim: To explore Australian pharmacists' decision-making in complex scenarios around CO and reasons for their choices. Method: A cross-sectional, qualitative questionnaire of pharmacists' perspectives on CO. Vignette-based questions were about scenarios related to medical termination, emergency contraception, IVF surrogacy for a same-sex couple and Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) Results: Approximately half of participants (n = 223) believed pharmacists have the right to CO and most agreed to supply prescriptions across all vignettes. However, those who chose not to supply (n = 20.9%), believed it justifiable, even at the risk of patients failing to access treatment. Strong self-reported religiosity had a statistically significant relationship with decisions not to supply for 3 of 4 vignettes. Three emergent themes included: ethical considerations, the role of the pharmacist and training and guidance. Conclusion: This exploratory study revealed perspectives of Australian pharmacists about a lack of guidance around CO in pharmacy. Findings highlighted the need for future research to investigate and develop further training and professional frameworks articulating steps to guide pharmacists around CO.

La objeción de conciencia en el ámbito sanitario: un equilibrio entre derechos y deberes / L’objecció de consciència en l'àmbit sanitari: un equilibri entre drets i deures / Conscientious objection in the healthcare domain: A balance between rights and responsibilities

La entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 3/2021 sobre eutanasia en España (2021), ha propiciado un debate de relevancia en el ámbito de la bioética, como es el de la objeción de conciencia (OC) de los profesionales de la salud. Ahora bien, a pesar de que la literatura científica ha abordado esta cuestión, lo cierto es que la comprensión de los motivos subyacentes que impulsan a los profesionales a objetar no está del todo clara. Diversos autores han destacado que la OC halla sus fundamentos en creencias personales, ética profesional, aspectos emocionales y dinámicas del propio sistema. A su vez, se ha observado cómo hay posiciones diversas sobre la legitimidad de la OC, generando debates sobre su validez.Los objetivos de este artículo son revisar el concepto objeción de conciencia en el ámbito sanitario; analizar los factores que motivan este derecho; examinar las consecuencias de la OC en la carga asistencial de los profesionales no objetores; y explorar su posible conflicto ético con la justicia distributiva en la atención sanitaria. Por último, se reflexionará sobre la posibilidad de la OC institucional y sus posibles consecuencias en los derechos de pacientes y trabajadores.(AU)

L'entrada en vigor de la Llei Orgànica 3/2021 sobre l'eutanàsia a Espanya (2021) ha suscitat un debat rellevant en l'àmbit de la bioètica, com és el de l’objecció de consciència(OC) dels professionals de la salut. Tanmateix, malgrat que la literatura científica ha abordat aquesta qüestió, és cert que la comprensió dels motius subjacents que impulsen els professionals a objectar no està del tot clara. Diversos autors han destacatque l’OC troba els seus fonaments en creences personals, ètica professional, aspectes emocionals i dinàmiques del propi sistema. Al seu torn, s'ha observat com hi ha posicions diverses sobre la legitimitat de l’OC, generant debats sobre la seva validesa. Els objectius d'aquest article són revisar el concepte d’objecció de consciència en l'àmbit sanitari; analitzar els factors que motiven aquest dret; examinar les repercussions de l’OC en la càrrega assistencial dels professionals no objectors; i explorar el seu possible conflicte ètic amb la justícia distributiva en l'atenció sanitària. Finalment, es reflexionarà sobre la possibilitat de l’OC institucional i les seves possibles repercussions en els drets dels pacients i treballadors.(AU)

The enactment of Organic Law 3/2021 on euthanasia in Spain has sparked a significant debate in the field of bioethics, namely the issue of conscientious objection (CO) among healthcare professionals. However, despite the scientific literature addressing this matter, the understanding of the underlying reasons that drive professionals to object is not entirely clear. Several authors have highlighted that CO is rooted in personal beliefs, professional ethics, emotional aspects, and dynamics within the healthcare system. Simultaneously, there have been varying stances on the legitimacy of CO, leading to debates regarding its validity.The objectives of this article are to review the concept of conscientious objection in the healthcare context, analyze the factors motivating this right, examine the consequences of CO on the workload of non-objecting professionals, and explore its potential ethical conflict with distributive justice in healthcare. Finally, we will reflect on the possibility of institutional CO and its potential implications for the rights of patients and healthcare workers.(AU)

Health providers' reasons for participating in abortion care: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is a global shortage of health providers in abortion care. Public discourse presents abortion providers as dangerous and greedy and links 'conscience' with refusal to participate. This may discourage provision. A scoping review of empirical evidence is needed to inform public perceptions of the reasons that health providers participate in abortion. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify what is known about health providers' reasons for participating in abortion provision. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included health providers' reasons for participating in legal abortion provision. Only empirical studies were eligible for inclusion. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched the following databases from January 2000 until January 2022: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ScienceDirect and Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International Abstracts. Grey literature was also searched. METHODS: Dual screening was conducted of both title/abstract and full-text articles. Health providers' reasons for provision were extracted and grouped into preliminary categories based on the existing research. These categories were revised by all authors until they sufficiently reflected the extracted data. RESULTS: From 3251 records retrieved, 68 studies were included. In descending order, reasons for participating in abortion were as follows: supporting women's choices and advocating for women's rights (76%); being professionally committed to participating in abortion (50%); aligning with personal, religious or moral values (39%); finding provision satisfying and important (33%); being influenced by workplace exposure or support (19%); responding to the community needs for abortion services (14%) and participating for practical and lifestyle reasons (8%). CONCLUSION: Abortion providers participated in abortion for a range of reasons. Reasons were mainly focused on supporting women's choices and rights; providing professional health care; and providing services that aligned with the provider's own personal, religious or moral values. The findings provided no evidence to support negative portrayals of abortion providers present in public discourse. Like conscientious objectors, abortion providers can also be motivated by conscience.

The establishment of conscientious monopolies in rural communities.

In the United States, healthcare providers have the federally protected right to conscientiously refuse to provide treatments or services that they feel violate their moral or religious values. This refusal of services is colloquially known as "conscientious objection," which has become a polarizing topic in today's medical and ethical landscape. Typically, physicians exercising their right to conscientious objection do not represent a barrier in access to care for most patient populations. This dynamic shifts, however, in rural America, where there are relatively few providers. In this commentary, we discuss some of the unique ramifications that are likely to occur when rural providers invoke conscientious objection in their medical practice and how this can in turn establish conscientious monopolies for the members of their communities.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the termination of pregnancy: a qualitative analysis of survey data in Northern Ireland.

Abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in October 2019. Following decriminalisation, the new regulations set out legal provision for abortion up until 12 weeks, with conditions thereafter. This cross-sectional descriptive survey, conducted in late 2019 in Northern Ireland, gathered the views of health professionals on decriminalisation, and their willingness to provide abortion services. This article provides a thematic analysis of answers to narrative questions from the online survey, and identifies priority areas of engagement with healthcare professionals. We assess how healthcare professional roles and responsibilities, abortion procedures, the foetus, and women and pregnant people were discursively constructed by respondents who are willing or unwilling to provide abortion services in Northern Ireland. We identify a narrow understanding of 'harm', and gendered norms of women as irresponsible or duplicitous, as inhibitory factors to the normalisation of abortion services in Northern Ireland.

The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics.

Bioethicists aim to provide moral guidance in policy, research, and clinical contexts using methods of moral analysis (e.g., principlism, casuistry, and narrative ethics) that aim to satisfy the constraints of public reason. Among other objections, some critics have argued that public reason lacks the moral content needed to resolve bioethical controversies because discursive reason simply cannot justify any substantive moral claims in a pluralistic society. In this paper, the authors defend public reason from this criticism by showing that it contains sufficient content to address one of the perennial controversies in bioethics-the permissibility and limits of clinician conscientious objection. They develop a "reasonability view" grounded in public reason and apply it to some recent examples of conscientious objection.

Current Challenges for Conscientious Objection by Physicians in Spain.

The College of Physicians of Madrid organized an open debate on conscientious objection (CO) in the medical profession on September 14, 2022. We summarize here the main arguments discussed. CO is defined as the right to raise exceptions to the performance of legal duties when they involve a contravention of personal convictions, whether religious, moral, or philosophical. It is not insubordination. Some authors contend that any decision by elected authorities should be uniformly followed by all citizens, physicians not being an exception. However, suppressing the ethical dimension of medical care may have an unacceptable cost with harm to physicians, their patients, and ultimately society. Health professionals are not blind instruments or mere "executors." The practice of medicine must follow the aim of the profession, namely the pursuit of the patient's good. Medical care must conform to medical ethics, which was first defined twenty-five centuries ago in the Hippocratic oath, and summarized with the triad of precepts "cure, relief, accompaniment." Since then and particularly in light of the Nuremberg trials, most medical declarations have highlighted the duty of defending human life and the importance of CO. In modern societies, there may be medical services that are not health care, even if they are legal. Then, which comes first law or ethics? Ultimately, CO is the tool that protects the freedom of the physician to refuse to perform actions that go against the values of medical ethics. With respect to the recent Spanish laws on abortion, euthanasia, and sex re-assignment of minors, if administrators want to know who is available for a health service that raises issues of conformity to medical ethics, requesting a list of volunteers is preferable to producing an objector list. Asking for registration of conscientious objectors goes against the right to privacy and is coercive, intrusive, and abusive.

Conscientious objection and barriers to abortion within a specific regional context - an expert interview study.

BACKGROUND: While most countries that allow abortion on women's request also grant physicians a right to conscientious objection (CO), this has proven to constitute a potential barrier to abortion access. Conscientious objection is regarded as an understudied phenomenon the effects of which have not yet been examined in Germany. Based on expert interviews, this study aims to exemplarily reconstruct the processes of abortion in a mid-sized city in Germany, and to identify potential effects of conscientious objection. METHODS: Five semi-structured interviews with experts from all instances involved have been conducted in April 2020. The experts gave an insight into the medical care structures with regard to abortion procedures, the application and manifestations of conscientious objection in medical practice, and its impact on the care of pregnant women. A content analysis of the transcribed interviews was performed. RESULTS: Both the procedural processes and the effects of conscientious objection are reported to differ significantly between early abortions performed before the 12th week of pregnancy and late abortions performed at the second and third trimester. Conscientious objection shows structural consequences as it is experienced to further reduce the number of possible providers, especially for early abortions. On the individual level of the doctor-patient relationship, the experts confirmed the neutrality and patient-orientation of the vast majority of doctors. Still, it is especially late abortions that seem to be vulnerable to barriers imposed by conscientious objection in individual medical encounters. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that conscientious objection possibly imposes barriers to both early and late abortion provision and especially in the last procedural steps, which from an ethical point of view is especially problematic. To oblige hospitals to partake in abortion provision in Germany has the potential to prevent negative impacts of conscientious objection on women's rights on an individual as well as on a structural level.

[Abortion in Melilla: barriers to ocean and frontier]. / Aborto en Melilla: barreras de océano y frontera.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insights into the challenges faced by women seeking abortion services in Melilla, Spain. It seeks to describe the journey these women undertake and to identify and analyze the barriers they encounter in accessing abortion care. METHOD: A qualitative research approach was employed, involving a series of eight semi-structured interviews during 2022. Three interviews were conducted with national experts in the field of abortion, while five interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals from the Melilla Health Area who are directly involved in providing abortion services and supporting women throughout the process. The study was guided by a theoretical framework that focuses on barriers to abortion access and sexual and reproductive rights. The collected data was analyzed using content analysis and categorized based on key dimensions of the study. RESULTS: The study identified several significant barriers to abortion care access in Melilla. These include conscientious objection among healthcare providers, the geographical remoteness of Melilla, the legal challenges faced by Moroccan women due to their irregular status, and the requirement of parental consent for minors aged 16 and 17. Consequently, women seeking abortion services are forced to travel to mainland Spain, continue with undesired pregnancies, or resort to unsafe clandestine abortions in Morocco, thereby endangering their lives in the worst cases. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers to abortion access identified in this study represent a violation of women's reproductive rights in Melilla. Urgent action is required to review the current process, ensuring that access is improved and the right to safe abortion is guaranteed for all women residing in Melilla.

Pharmacists' Attitudes towards Medically Assisted Dying.

AIMS: We aimed to explore pharmacists' attitudes and support toward medically assisted dying (MaiD) through the End of Life Choice Act 2019 (EOLC), their willingness to provide services in this area of practice, and the influences on their decisions. METHODS: The study was conducted via an anonymous, online QualtricsTM survey of pharmacists. Registered New Zealand pharmacists who agreed to receive surveys from the two Schools of Pharmacy as part of their Annual Practicing Certificate renewal were invited to participate through an email with a Qualtrics URL link. The survey contained questions regarding demographics, awareness, knowledge, support for, and attitudes and willingness to participate. RESULTS: Of the 335 responses received, 289 were valid and included in the analysis. Most participants supported legally assisted medical dying (58%), almost a third of participants did not support it (29%), and 13% of respondents were unsure. The five primary considerations that participants perceived to be beneficial included support from legislation, respect for patient autonomy, discussions around morality, ending suffering, and preserving dignity. The main concerns were legal, personal bias, palliation, stigmatisation, and vulnerability. CONCLUSIONS: The influences on the decision by pharmacists to support and willingness to participate in the provision of services consistent with the EOLC are complex and multifactorial. Diverse factors may influence attitudes, of which religion is the most significant factor in not supporting the Act or willingness to participate. Clarity and standardised guidance to ensure that assisted dying queries are appropriately managed in practice would help to address any potential access issues.

Aborto en Melilla: barreras de océano y frontera / Abortion in Melilla: barriers to ocean and frontier

Objetivo: Describir el recorrido que realizan las mujeres para abortar en Melilla, así como identificar y analizar las barreras para su acceso. Método: Investigación cualitativa con un total de ocho entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas durante 2022 a tres personas referentes en el tema del aborto de ámbito nacional y a cinco profesionales del Área de Salud de Melilla implicadas tanto en la prestación como en el recorrido que hacen las mujeres para poder abortar. El marco teórico que se siguió fueron las barreras de acceso al aborto y los derechos sexuales y reproductivos. Se realizó un análisis temático del contenido y por categorías según las dimensiones del estudio. Resultados: Se han identificado varias barreras de acceso al aborto en Melilla, entre las que destacan la objeción de conciencia, la localización geográfica de Melilla, la situación irregular de las mujeres marroquíes y la necesidad de consentimiento en las menores de 16 y 17 años. Estos obstáculos obligan a las mujeres que quieran abortar a trasladarse a la Península para conseguir el procedimiento, a continuar con un embarazo no deseado o, en el peor de los casos, a someterse a un aborto clandestino en Marruecos poniendo en riesgo su vida. Conclusiones: Las barreras de acceso descritas suponen una vulneración y una violación del derecho al aborto en Melilla. Se debe revisar el recorrido que se ven obligadas a hacer las mujeres de forma que se facilite el acceso y se garantice el derecho a un aborto seguro a todas las mujeres residentes en Melilla.(AU)

Objective: To provide insights into the challenges faced by women seeking abortion services in Melilla, Spain. It seeks to describe the journey these women undertake and to identify and analyze the barriers they encounter in accessing abortion care. Method: A qualitative research approach was employed, involving a series of eight semi-structured interviews during 2022. Three interviews were conducted with national experts in the field of abortion, while five interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals from the Melilla Health Area who are directly involved in providing abortion services and supporting women throughout the process. The study was guided by a theoretical framework that focuses on barriers to abortion access and sexual and reproductive rights. The collected data was analyzed using content analysis and categorized based on key dimensions of the study. Results: The study identified several significant barriers to abortion care access in Melilla. These include conscientious objection among healthcare providers, the geographical remoteness of Melilla, the legal challenges faced by Moroccan women due to their irregular status, and the requirement of parental consent for minors aged 16 and 17. Consequently, women seeking abortion services are forced to travel to mainland Spain, continue with undesired pregnancies, or resort to unsafe clandestine abortions in Morocco, thereby endangering their lives in the worst cases. Conclusions: The barriers to abortion access identified in this study represent a violation of women's reproductive rights in Melilla. Urgent action is required to review the current process, ensuring that access is improved and the right to safe abortion is guaranteed for all women residing in Melilla.(AU)

Vulneración de Derechos Fundamentales por práctica de la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en una comunidad autónoma distinta a la de residencia: comentario a la Sentencia 78/2023, de 3 de julio de 2023, del Tribunal Constitucional / [Violation of Fundamental Rights due to the practice of voluntary interruption of pregnancy in an autonomous community other than that of residence: comment on Sentence 78/2023, of July 3, 2023, of the Constitutional Court]

El presente trabajo estudia la Sentencia 78/2023, de 3 de julio de 2023, del Tribunal Constitucional, que analiza la práctica de interrupción voluntaria del embarazo en una comunidad autónoma distinta a la de residencia. La cuestión principal radica en apreciar una vulneración a la garantía de interrumpir voluntariamente el embarazo dentro de los supuestos legales, como parte del contenido constitucionalmente protegido del derecho fundamental a la integridad física y moral (art. 15 CE). (AU)

This paper studies Judgement 78/2023, of 3 July 2023, of the Constitutional Court, which analyzes the practice of voluntary termination of pregnancy in an autonomous community other than that of residence. The main question lies in assessing a violation of the guarantee of voluntary termination of pregnancy within the legal circumstances, as part of the constitutionally protected content of the fundamental right to physical and moral integrity (art. 15 CE). (AU)

Objections to assisted dying within institutions: systemic solutions for rapprochement.

In this Matters Arising article, we outline how the recent article "The impact on patients of objections by institutions to assisted dying: a qualitative study of family caregivers' perceptions" (White et al., 2023 Mar 13;24(1):22) informed Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) implementation in our large Australian public health setting, where objections do not emanate from, but within, the institution. In reporting the harms to patients and caregivers created by institutional objection, White et al. provide an evidenced-based road map for potential potholes or risks associated with VAD implementation. We discuss the complexities emerging from the diverse views of health professionals and the ethical tensions arising from such, especially within certain specialties, and how we developed systemic strategies that support patients, caregivers and staff alike. We highlighted the need to shift from "Do you support VAD?" to "How can we support you as healthcare professionals to integrate VAD into your practice, in a way that complies with the legislation, meets the needs of patients and caregivers, and feels safe and does not compromise your moral stance?"