The Independent has run the story of a ‘Christian-run NHS GP surgery’ which has apparently ‘attracted criticism for posting a notice warning that some of its doctors refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill to patients on grounds of conscience’.
The message on the door of The Links Medical Practice in Mottingham, south London advises patients that if ‘a consenting doctor is not available’ to prescribe contraception they should contact a local clinic or chemist.
One of the practice’s patients was apparently so outraged by this that she opted to leave the practice and Audrey Simpson, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, has said that other women should also think about leaving the surgery in response to the notice.
She is reported as saying: ‘Leaving will send out a message to them that women have the right to access emergency contraception.’
Women can of course legally access ‘emergency contraception’ in the UK and can buy the ‘morning-after pill’ levonelle over the counter without prescription from most pharmacies as well as accessing it free on prescription, from sexual health clinics and from NHS walk in centres.
The Guidance ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’ states:
‘You may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values, as long as this does not result in direct or indirect discrimination against, or harassment of, individual patients or groups of patients.’
It goes on to describe how this is to be done:
‘If, having taken account of your legal and ethical obligations, you wish to exercise a conscientious objection to particular services or procedures, you must do your best to make sure that patients who may consult you about it are aware of your objection in advance. You can do this by making sure that any printed material about your practice and the services you provide explains if there are any services you will not normally provide because of a conscientious objection.’
This seems to be exactly what these doctors have done.
The guidance adds that doctors who do not provide a certain treatment should ‘tell the patient’, tell them ‘that they have a right to discuss their condition and the options for treatment with another practitioner’ and ‘make sure that the patient has enough information to arrange to see another doctor who does not hold the same objection as you’.
Why might doctors have an objection to prescribing ‘emergency contraception’?
There are three main reasons.
Some doctors may have an objection to prescribing contraception in principle. Many Catholics take this view.
Some doctors object to prescribing a drug which might in some circumstances act by preventing an early embryo from implanting in the womb as they see this as an early form of abortion. Although there is not firm proof that levonelle acts in this way there is at very least a degree of uncertainty and no absolute proof that it does not (more on this here – note levonelle in the UK is the same drug as Plan B in the US).
Finally some object because they are unconvinced that levonelle is an effective intervention. Its success rate is relatively low (95% within 24 hours of sexual intercourse, 85% from 25-48 hours and 58% from 49-72 hours). Also in clinical trials its ready availability has been shown not to reduce pregnancy rates in a population and actually to raise rates of sexually transmitted diseases.
This is thought to be due to the phenomenon of ‘risk compensation’ – people taking more risks because they believe there is a safety net.
But regardless of the reasons for a given doctor’s objection to prescribing ‘emergency contraception’, the fact that a patient can legally access it does not mean that every doctor thereby has a legal or ethical duty to supply it.
Doctors should not be forced to provide treatments or interventions that they believe are unethical, ineffective or inappropriate. To force them to do so would be to undermine their professional integrity. They are not simply rubber stamps.
Instead reasonable accommodation should be made. And thankfully both the law and the GMC guidance currently allow for that.
As the recent CMF File on the doctor’s conscience concludes:
The right of conscientious objection is not a minor or peripheral issue. It goes to the heart of medical practice as a moral activity…. The right of conscience helps to preserve the moral integrity of the individual clinician, preserves the distinctive characteristics and reputation of medicine as a profession, acts as a safeguard against coercive state power, and provides protection from discrimination for those with minority ethical beliefs.