WHY THIS IS A VITAL MATTER OF CONSCIENCE A

CAll The Midwife has become a national institution, and is the BBC’s most popular drama. Up to ten million people tune in to this heart-warming serial, and its stars, such as Jenny Agutter and Helen George, have reminded people what a high calling it is to bring children into the world.

Yet I think that many viewers would be horrified to realise that today, in 21st century Britain, midwives can lose their jobs unless they are willing to facilitate abortions — even though, in ending the life of an unborn child, they must do something that is instinctively the opposite of their calling.

To put a midwife — or any other healthcare professional — in that invidious position is to me wholly unacceptable. It is almost totalitarian.

What sort of society are we creating, if we tell a midwife that she (or he) must facilitate abortions, however strong their objections, or face the end of their career?

A brave attempt to right this wrong is being made in Parliament: Baroness O’loan’s Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill which passed its second reading in the House of lords last month.

Sadly, this occurred with no fanfare and I suspect that the majority of readers are unaware of the legislation. Although it has the welcome support of senior peers, including lord Mackay, the former lord Chancellor, without vigorous support from the public, the bill is probably doomed.

And yet, as I shall explain, this is not a hypothetical issue but one that increasingly affects the lives and careers of men and women working in the NHS — and not just midwives but other healthcare professionals, too.

It was in 2014 that two Catholic midwives in Scotland, Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, lost their court battle to be treated as ‘conscientious objectors’, and be excused from participating in abortions.

The Supreme Court ruled that the women had the right to refuse to carry out the procedures themselves, but that they were obliged to delegate these duties to other staff and to supervise the staff during the abortions.

Recently, I met with Mary Doogan. She is an extraordinary individual — a kind and compassionate woman who was deeply committed to caring for those in her charge, and serving her patients through the happiest, and occasionally the saddest, of times.

Her forced resignation from her post as labour ward co-ordinator at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow was a grievous loss both to her and to the NHS, and one that could have been avoided had there been a basic respect for her deeply-held beliefs.

S SHe told a recent conference on the rights of the unborn child, ‘For years (Connie Wood and I) had no problem exercising our consciences. It was never an issue. But with fewer senior staff and more early terminations, the incidence ( of abortions) was increasing, and we had more problems with trying to resist being involved.

‘I personally started taking the issue to my managers, asking them to do something about it. And they started changing the interpretation (of the law).’

In other words, she was told she had no choice. Ultimately, it was her courage that got her into trouble. She spoke up and, instead of trying to accommodate her concerns, her managers turned it into a confrontation.

They tried to use the law to force her to comply, or to leave the NHS (which has a serious shortage of midwives). I find it especially abhorrent that this was done in the name of liberal principles.

Mary Doogan and Connie Wood happen to be devout Catholics. But religion is not at stake here. A Muslim, a Jew or an atheist might equally feel obliged to obey the dictates of conscience, to uphold the sanctity of human life. This goes directly to the core of the kind of society we are. Britain in 2018 is so diverse, so tolerant and accepting of every kind of culture — but not, it seems, of the motives that draw an individual into midwifery.

If our society is to pass any test of ethics and decency, then I believe we must respect that individual’s right to choose not to be involved in abortion procedures.

This is a fundamental matter of principle. If we coerce people into acting against their conscience, we undermine all civilised codes of behaviour — and we damage the individuals who are forced to betray their beliefs.

History shows us how that goes: at first people resist, but soon the crime of conscience becomes normal and routine. This is the path to moral chaos — which is why I am a great advocate of Baroness O’loan’s Bill, not least because our current law on protection for healthcare professionals is deficient.

That law was framed in 1967, introduced by David Steel (since ennobled) and passed as the Abortion Act by a free vote. It was envisaged as a law to be used in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone who tried to warn that, within 50 years, Britain would become a place where an abortion is carried out every three minutes, or 20 times an hour, or 600 every working day, would have been greeted with disbelief and accused of scaremongering.

lord Steel has told me that when he was framing the law, some of his colleagues had deep conscientious objections. To provide for their concerns, a clause was introduced — Clause Four — that established the absolute right of doctors to abstain from carrying out abortions.

It went further than that, as David Steel told the Commons: ‘The Bill imposes no obligation on anyone to participate in an operation.’ He added that the clause also ‘gives nurses and hospital employees a clear right to opt out.’

For Mary and Connie that assurance proved not to be worth the paper it was written on when challenged almost 50 years later.

That clause remains on the statute books, but as lord Mackay said just this week, following the Supreme Court ruling the reality is it provides weak protection for healthcare professionals and even those working in healthcare more generally — and in many cases

none at all. for instance, 30 years ago, a GP’s receptionist in salford was dismissed from her job after she refused to type a letter of referral for an abortion.

A few years later, a young environmental scientist at a hospital in the North of England objected to monitoring the emissions from the incinerator when the bodies of aborted foetuses were being burned. He too was sacked.

Quite recently a pharmacist lost his job because he would not dispense morning-after pills. All these people were acting not on a whim, or out of malice, but because of deeply- held convictions.

some of the most highly respected thinkers and moralists in parliament have thrown their weight behind Baroness O’Loan’s bill.

Baroness Caroline Cox, a former vice president of the Royal College of Nursing, says the diminution of the rights of healthcare staff has reached danger levels. Professor John Wyatt, one of the country’s most experienced paediatric specialists, says the erosion of conscience in medicine is a slippery slope.

But the speaker who perhaps impressed me most last month was Katie Ascough, a 20-year-old science student at University College Dublin (UCD). Kate is feisty, intelligent and articulate.

she is also a former president of UCD students’ union. Her own union impeached her, with more than 1,000 members signing a petition against her, because she refused to hand out literature promoting abortion.

After she received an award for her commitment to human rights and human dignity at the House of Lords, she told me that she was one of a large family. One of her brothers was miscarried at 14 weeks. Katie said: ‘I held Lawrence in my hand when my mum miscarried and I promised him that I would fight for the life of the unborn child. That made a big difference to me. I felt compelled to protect all life.’

In Britain today, it is becoming difficult to express dissent. There’s too much Political Correctness, and not enough Political Courage. Our society is losing the ability to distinguish between principled objection and ‘hate crimes’ — instead of taking a stand, backed by rational argument and morals, people are being intimidated into submissive silence.

Listening to Katie Ascough and her ready courage was an inspiration. It gives me faith that the next generation won’t be silenced.

We should all emulate her bravery and that of Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, and loudly demand that the Conscientious Objection Bill gets the safe passage through Parliament that it fully deserves.

DAvID Alton — lord Alton of liverpool — is an Independent Crossbench Peer. In 1987, as an MP, he introduced a bill to reduce the legal limit for abortions from 28 weeks to 18. the bill was talked out by opponents but as a direct result of the debate around it, the limit was reduced to 24 weeks.