[vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”4/6″][vc_column_text]

Online submission form

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”4/6″][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]The terms of reference of the Inquiry are:

To assess the extent to which the Conscience Clause provides adequate protection for doctors who do not wish to participate, directly or indirectly, in the provision of abortions;
To assess the extent to which the Conscience Clause provides adequate protection for other health professionals who do not wish to participate, directly or indirectly, in the provision of abortions;
To examine how freedom of conscience in the law and professional guidance can be developed for healthcare professionals going forward.

Section 4 of the Abortion Act (1967) requires that ‘no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection’. Commonly known as the ‘Conscience Clause’, the purpose of this section of the 1967 legislation was to enable men and women with conscientious objections to abortion to remain fully engaged in providing healthcare without being compelled to participate in the provision of abortion.

This short Inquiry will examine whether the Conscience Clause continues to provide adequate protection for healthcare professionals who do not wish to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of abortions. The Inquiry particularly welcomes examples of good and bad practice in the use of the Conscience Clause.

The Inquiry requests responses to this call for written evidence as soon as possible. The deadline for submissions is 5pm on 11th July 2016.

Please note that there is a limit of 500 words maximum per question. All evidence will be made public once the report has been published. Please indicate if you wish your evidence to be anonymous.

We look forward to receiving your submission.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”4/6″][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]

Information about respondent

Name

Email

Phone number

Address

Postcode

Are you responding on behalf of an organisation or as an individual?
IndividualOrganisation

Name of organisation (if applicable)

Position in organisation (if applicable)

Profession

Please describe your interest in the questions raised by the inquiry

Do you wish for your evidence to be kept anonymous?
NoYes

Inquiry questions

1. Do you think freedom of conscience for healthcare professionals in the provision of abortion is important? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. Do you think that doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion have adequate protection to fully engage in their profession without compromising their freedom of conscience?

3. Do you think that other healthcare professionals with a conscientious objection to abortion have adequate protection to fully engage in their profession without compromising their freedom of conscience?

4. Do you have personal experience of, or do you know of, examples of good practice where healthcare professionals do not wish to participate, directly or indirectly, in the provision of abortions? Good practice might have been shown by the healthcare professional, healthcare organisation, or both.

5. Do you have personal experience of, or do you know of, examples of poor practice where healthcare professionals do not wish to participate, directly or indirectly, in the provision of abortions? Poor practice might have been shown by the healthcare professional, healthcare organisation, or both.

6. In your view, are there any useful precedents for protection of freedom of conscience from other areas of the UK or from other jurisdictions?

7. Do you think legislation or professional guidance for healthcare professionals in the UK should be changed or developed? If so, in what way would you recommend?

8. Any other comments?

[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” css_animation=””][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”4/6″][vc_column_text]

Inquiry chair: Fiona Bruce MP / [email protected] / 020 7219 2969. © Copyright Parliamentary Inquiry into Freedom of Conscience in Abortion Provision 2016. Privacy and Cookies. This is not an official website of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees. This Inquiry is run by the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group. All Party Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues.

[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row]