Abstract:
Healthcare professionals obstruct patients' access to abortion care by refusing to provide services due to their personal moral objections. This paper assesses the appropriateness of embracing conscience as a valid decision-making criterion within the healthcare sector. It asserts that such a criterion is inconsistent with the traditional evidence-based approaches that underpin healthcare decision-making. Further, this paper highlights how the arbitrary application of conscientious objection solely to reproductive services undermines the medical validity and importance of these essential healthcare provisions. Conscientious objection to abortion in New Zealand has significant practical consequences, including a reduction in available healthcare providers, service delays, and added financial and mental burdens on patients. These burdens are unjustifiable, as patients should have unimpeded access to routine healthcare. In contrast, the paper argues that the potential impacts of abolishing conscientious objection on health professionals are limited and justifiable, given their autonomous choice to enter a profession dedicated to patient care. This paper advocates for the elimination of the right to conscientious objection for reproductive services, drawing on international jurisdictions for examples to support this approach. It argues that the prohibition of conscience-based refusals is the only effective way to prioritise patients' rights to abortion care.
