The highly complex issue of conscientious objection to abortion: can the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling Grimmark v. Sweden redefine the notions of care before freedom of conscience?

Abstract

Purpose

The article aims to elaborate on two recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions which have rejected, on grounds of non-admissibility, the appeals by two Swedish midwives who refused to carry out abortion-related services, basing their refusal on conscientious objection, and to expound upon the legal and ethical underpinnings and core standards applied to the framing process of such a ECtHR decision.

Materials and Methods

By drawing upon relevant recommendations from international institutions, the authors have aimed to assess how the ECtHR rationale could affect the balance between CO and patient rights; searches have been conducted up until December 2020.

Results

In both decisions the European Court has asserted that the right to exercise conscientious objection must give way to the protection of the right to health of women seeking to have an abortion.

Conclusions

ECtHR judges concluded that the failure to provide for a right to conscientious objection does not constitute, in fact, a violation of the more general right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, if provided for by a state law to protect the right to health. The legal ethical and social ramifications of such a decision are of enormous magnitude.

摘要

目的：本文旨在阐述欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)最近的两项裁决, 这两项裁决以不可受理为由, 驳回了两名瑞典助产士的上诉, 这两名助产士拒绝提供与堕胎有关的服务, 理由是出于良知拒绝履行, 并阐述了ECtHR裁决的法律和伦理基础以及适用于此类裁决制定过程的核心标准。材料和方法：通过借鉴国际机构的相关建议, 作者旨在评估ECtHR的基本原理如何影响CO和患者权利之间的平衡；研究一直进行到2020年12月。结果：欧洲法院在这两项裁决中都断言, 行使良知拒绝履行权必须让位于保护寻求堕胎的妇女的健康权。结论：欧洲人权委员会法官得出结论, 如果州法律规定保护健康权的话, 未规定依良知拒绝履行的权利, 事实上并不构成对更广泛的思想、良知和宗教自由权的侵犯。这一决定的法律、伦理和社会影响是巨大的。

Keywords:

• Conscientious objection
• voluntary termination of pregnancy
• European Court of Human Rights
• women’s rights
• abortion

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).