Conscience and conscientious objection: The midwife's role in abortion services.

Abortion conscience conscientious objection midwifery

Journal

Nursing ethics
ISSN: 1477-0989
Titre abrégé: Nurs Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9433357

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Jul 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 7 7 2020
medline: 7 7 2020
entrez: 7 7 2020
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Traditionally, the role of midwives has been to be with women throughout the pregnancy continuum, from conception until the end of the postnatal period. Midwives, however, have been named as key providers of abortion services. While freedom of conscience is legally protected within Europe, discrepancies exist between midwifery and conscientious objection to abortion-related services. Midwives are largely ignored within the academic discussion despite the care and support they give to women undergoing abortions. Those discrepancies led to the aim of this article to address this issue by discussing some of the key ethical and legal concepts that are relevant to midwives' role in the provision of abortion services.This article shows that the decision to provide or object to abortion services remains ethically very complex because arguments exist both for and against its provision. Being with women can be interpreted differently and individual situations of care are multifaceted. Conscientious objection to abortion services is a highly contentious issue that has an overall importance to midwives. Noting that decisions are individual, may change or may be situationally dependant; a definitive position of midwives for or against conscientious objection cannot be assumed.Respecting conscience and acknowledging that there are various arguments for and against conscientious objection promotes widespread understanding. It accommodates both the opportunity for midwives to object on conscience grounds to the provision of abortion services and respect women's autonomy so that mutual agreement may be reached on issues that may have far reaching consequences.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32627664
doi: 10.1177/0969733020928416
pmc: PMC7575296
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

969733020928416

Références

Soc Sci Med. 2017 Oct;191:109-116
pubmed: 28917139
Midwifery. 1994 Sep;10(3):131-41
pubmed: 7815952
Med Law Rev. 2015 Spring;23(2):221-41
pubmed: 25944894
Bioethics. 2017 Sep;31(7):495-504
pubmed: 28374464
Midwifery. 2012 Aug;28(4):E469-77
pubmed: 21782297
Med Law Rev. 2011 Summer;19(3):467-75
pubmed: 21798996
Bioethics. 2000 Jul;14(3):205-27
pubmed: 11658133
Int J Womens Health. 2018 Nov 23;10:751-762
pubmed: 30538585
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2017 Jan;26(1):18-31
pubmed: 27934567
J Med Ethics. 1996 Apr;22(2):115-20
pubmed: 8731539
Midwifery. 2012 Oct;28(5):e720-5
pubmed: 21940080
Fordham Urban Law J. 2002 Nov;30(1):221-44
pubmed: 15868671
Women Birth. 2018 Apr;31(2):143-152
pubmed: 28807466
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Apr 27;19(1):31
pubmed: 29703258
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013 Dec;123 Suppl 3:S63-5
pubmed: 24332237
Bioethics. 2014 Jan;28(1):8-15
pubmed: 24117664
J Med Ethics. 2018 Feb;44(2):104-108
pubmed: 28756398
Midwifery. 2002 Sep;18(3):188-92
pubmed: 12381422
Eur J Health Law. 2012 Jun;19(3):231-56
pubmed: 22916532
Bioethics. 2009 Jun;23(5):ii-iv
pubmed: 19476456
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 13;367(11):981-3
pubmed: 22970942

Auteurs

Beate Ramsayer (B)

Liverpool John Moores University, UK.

Valerie Fleming (V)

Liverpool John Moores University, UK.

Classifications MeSH