Doctors' right to refuse is questioned
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Medical leaders clashed yesterday over a plan to extend the right of doctors to refuse treatment to patients where they have a conscientious objection.
The British Medical Association accused the General Medical Council, the doctors' disciplinary body, of undermining fundamental ethical principles in proposals that could give doctors a licence to discriminate against certain groups of patients, including same sex couples, Jehovah's Witnesses and alcoholics.
The only legal right is for doctors who do not wish to participate in abortions, enshrined in the Abortion Act.
It is also widely accepted that some doctors are not to be involved in prescribing contraceptives such as the IUD and the morning-after pill and in withdrawing life-prolonging treatment. The GMC has been under pressure to revise its guidance on conscientious objection to accommodate doctors with other personal beliefs.
The draft guidance says doctors must not discriminate against patients because of their sexual orientation, gender or race. But it adds "unnecessary restrictions" should not be imposed on doctors because of their "cultural preferences or religious or other convictions".
The BMA said that was ambiguous and could confuse patients. Same-sex couples might be refused IVF treatment or a Jehovah's Witness could be refused treatment by a doctor who did not agree with their belief, the association said. It added it had anecdotal evidence of medical students claiming conscientious objection to learning about the clinical impact of alcohol.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, said: "Doctors are not there to judge patients but to treat them."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments