Choice of Women Versus Religious Conscience in Healthcare
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Cornelius Press
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018
By Scott Douglas Jacobsen
AllAfrica wrote a wonderful piece on religion and women in healthcare considerations.
The three points of contact for the reportage centered on religion, women’s bodily autonomy, and the Constitution of South Africa. There is the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, which legalizes voluntary abortion for different stages of a pregnancy.
It is seen as a liberal law. However, it has not been given a pervasive and consistent implementation or access for women who want to terminate their pregnancies. One reason comes from the health providers and facilities not treating women who need or want the abortion.
The article states, “Within South African law, specifically the termination of pregnancy Act, no health care provider – irrespective of the category – is ethically allowed to refuse to provide emergency treatment and care.”
The International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) published a report entitled “Unconscionable.” It notes the increase in the global refusal of healthcare providers to provide abortions in particular, and sexual and reproductive healthcare in general.
South Africa is the same as the rest of the world in the violation of the ethical precept of “do no harm.”
“Historically, the United Nations has defined a conscientious objector as an individual who refuses to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. This moral stance against military service has been recognized not only by the UN Human Rights Council but also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” the articles states.
The idea of a conscientious objector had a prior meaning and context. Now, this is being utilized by the anti-choice movements to refuse provision of basic human rights via sexual and reproductive rights or sexual and reproductive healthcare.
The article continued, “In South Africa, those who refuse to provide terminations of pregnancy do so in terms of section 15 (1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.”
However, the refusal to treat women who want to acquire abortions becomes a freedom of conscience and religion, and belief, issue against the right to dignity and equality given in the South African Constitution for women. Religion and rights conflict here.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 
Comments are closed.