Termination of pregnancy as emergency obstetric care: the interpretation of Catholic health policy and the consequences for pregnant women

Abstract

Issues arising from the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland in October 2012 include the question of whether it is unethical to refuse to terminate a non-viable pregnancy when the woman's life may be at risk. In Catholic maternity services, this decision intersects with health professionals' interpretation of Catholic health policy on treatment of miscarriage as well as the law on abortion. This paper explores how these issues came together around Savita's death and the consequences for pregnant women and maternity services worldwide. It discusses cases not only in Ireland but also the Americas. Many of the events presented are recent, and most of the sources are media and individual reports. However, there is a very worrying common thread across countries and continents. If further research unearths more cases like Savita's, any Catholic health professionals and/or hospitals refusing to terminate a pregnancy as emergency obstetric care should be stripped of their right to provide maternity services. In some countries these are the main or only existing maternity services. Even so, governments should refuse to fund these services, and either replace them with non-religious services or require that non-religious staff are available at all times specifically to take charge of such cases to prevent unnecessary deaths. At issue is whether a woman's life comes first or not at all.

‘Her choice of course’: Negotiating legitimacy of ‘choice’ in abortion rights deliberations during the ‘Repeal the Eighth’ movement in Ireland

“…In framing this as endorsed by the current 'Eighth Amendment' and a 'Pro life' (line 12) position, F treats extant provisions as sufficiently addressing issues. It is notable that this account closely follows that of the Eighth Amendment (Berer, 2013).…”

“The Fetus Is My Patient, Too”: Attitudes Toward Abortion and Referral Among Physician Conscientious Objectors in Bogotá, Colombia

“…2,20 Conscientious objection has been identified as an important barrier to abortion access in many countries, 21 including Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Mexico, Poland, South Africa, the United States and Zambia. 18,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Investigators from the United Nations, concerned about the potential for "disingenuous claims of moral conscience," have called for more research on the extent to which conscientious objection contributes to maternal morbidity and mortality in these countries. 2 The Colombian Constitutional Court defined conscientious objection as a manifestation of the right to freedom of conscience, but specified that the right is not absolute.…”

The Holy See on sexual and reproductive health rights: conservative in position, dynamic in response

“…Despite claims to the contrary, this creates a hierarchy in the Holy See's key "right to life" argument, placing the life of the unborn child above the mother's rather than equal to it, as it claims. 39 In requiring conformity to "accepted" language and existing conventions to gain ground against its interlocutors at the UN, the Holy See seeks to contain the development of agendas on sexual and reproductive health rights. It has ratified only three of the seven core international human rights instruments 40 : on racial discrimination (1969), the rights of the child (with reservations 1990), and against torture (2002).…”