Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Human Resources for Health 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Research

Accommodating conscientious objection in the midwifery workforce: a ratio-data analysis of midwives, birth and late abortions in 18 European countries in 2016

Authors: Valerie Fleming, Clare Maxwell, Beate Ramsayer

Published in: Human Resources for Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In recent years, the role of a midwife has expanded to include the provision of abortion-related care. The laws on abortion in many European countries allow for those who hold a conscientious objection to participating to refrain from such participation. However, some writers have expressed concerns that this may have a detrimental effect on the workforce and limit women’s access to the service.

Method

The aim of this study was to provide a picture of the potential exposure midwives in Europe have to late abortions, an important factor in the integration of accommodation of conscientious objection to abortion by midwives into workload planning. We collected data from Ministries of Health or government statistical departments in 32 European countries on numbers of births, abortions, late abortions and midwives in 2016. We conducted a ratio-data analysis in those countries that met the inclusion criteria.

Results

Eighteen of the 32 countries provided full data; thus, our calculations are based on a total of 4 036 633 live births, 49 834 late abortions and a total of 132 071 midwives. The calculated ratios of live births to midwife, abortions to midwife and late abortions to midwife illustrate the wide variations between countries in relation to ratios of midwives to live births (15.22–53.99) and late abortions (0.17–1.47)

Conclusions

This study provides the first comprehensive insight to ratios relating to birth and abortion, especially late abortion services, with regard to the midwifery workforce. It is essential to improve the reporting of abortion data and access to it within Europe to support evidence-informed decisions on optimising the contribution of the midwifery workforce especially within highly contentious fields such as abortion services. The study’s findings suggest that there should be neither be any difficulty for those who are responsible for workload allocation nor compromises to a women’s right to abortion services.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Renfrew M, McFadden A, Bastos M, Campbell J, Channon A, Cheung N, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384:1129–45.CrossRef Renfrew M, McFadden A, Bastos M, Campbell J, Channon A, Cheung N, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384:1129–45.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference World Health Orgnaization: Global abortion policies database. 2019. World Health Orgnaization: Global abortion policies database. 2019.
7.
go back to reference Criminal Code of Malta. Malta: Chapter 9; 1854. Criminal Code of Malta. Malta: Chapter 9; 1854.
8.
go back to reference Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein. Strafgesetzbuch (STGB). Lichtenstein; 1987. Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein. Strafgesetzbuch (STGB). Lichtenstein; 1987.
9.
go back to reference Fleming V, Frith L, Luyben A, Ramsayer B. Conscientious objection to participation in abortion by midwives and nurses: a systematic review of reasons. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:31.CrossRef Fleming V, Frith L, Luyben A, Ramsayer B. Conscientious objection to participation in abortion by midwives and nurses: a systematic review of reasons. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19:31.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lamb B: Polarising the abortion debate. Homily. 2018. Lamb B: Polarising the abortion debate. Homily. 2018.
11.
go back to reference Council of Europe: European Convention on Human Rights. vol. 2019; 1950. Council of Europe: European Convention on Human Rights. vol. 2019; 1950.
13.
go back to reference UK Supreme Court: Judgement. Greater Glasgow Health Board (Appelant) v Doogan and another (Respondents) (Scotland). 2014. UK Supreme Court: Judgement. Greater Glasgow Health Board (Appelant) v Doogan and another (Respondents) (Scotland). 2014.
15.
go back to reference Heino A, Gissler M, Apter D, Fiala C. Conscientious objection and induced abortion in Europe. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2013;18:231–3.CrossRef Heino A, Gissler M, Apter D, Fiala C. Conscientious objection and induced abortion in Europe. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2013;18:231–3.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Zampas C. Legal and ethical standards for protecting women’s human rights and the practice of conscientious objection in reproductive healthcare settings. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123:S63–5.CrossRef Zampas C. Legal and ethical standards for protecting women’s human rights and the practice of conscientious objection in reproductive healthcare settings. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123:S63–5.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Chavkin W, Swerdlow L, Fifield J. Regulation of conscientious objection to abortion: an international comparative multiple-case study. Health Hum Rights. 2017;19:55–68.PubMedPubMedCentral Chavkin W, Swerdlow L, Fifield J. Regulation of conscientious objection to abortion: an international comparative multiple-case study. Health Hum Rights. 2017;19:55–68.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Wicclair MR. Conscientious objection in medicine. Bioethics. 2000;14:205–27.CrossRef Wicclair MR. Conscientious objection in medicine. Bioethics. 2000;14:205–27.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Weinstock D. Conscientious refusal and health professionals: does religion make a difference? Bioethics. 2014;28:8–15.CrossRef Weinstock D. Conscientious refusal and health professionals: does religion make a difference? Bioethics. 2014;28:8–15.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Curlin F LR, Lantos J: Religion, conscience and controversial clinical practices. ‘The authors reply’. N Engl J Medicine 2007, 386:1889-1991. Curlin F LR, Lantos J: Religion, conscience and controversial clinical practices. ‘The authors reply’. N Engl J Medicine 2007, 386:1889-1991.
21.
22.
go back to reference Fiala C, Aurther J: Dishonourable disobedience: why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection. Woman - Psychosomatic - Gynaecological Obstetrics 2014. Fiala C, Aurther J: Dishonourable disobedience: why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection. Woman - Psychosomatic - Gynaecological Obstetrics 2014.
23.
go back to reference Pellegrino E. The physician’s conscience, conscience clause, and a religious belief: a catholic perspective. Fordham Urban Law J. 2002;30:221–44.PubMed Pellegrino E. The physician’s conscience, conscience clause, and a religious belief: a catholic perspective. Fordham Urban Law J. 2002;30:221–44.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Neal M: In good conscience: conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment. Paper presented at a seminar in the Law School University of Sheffield, January 2014. (Neal M ed. Law School University of Sheffield; 2014. Neal M: In good conscience: conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment. Paper presented at a seminar in the Law School University of Sheffield, January 2014. (Neal M ed. Law School University of Sheffield; 2014.
25.
go back to reference International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics: Resolution on conscientious objection. vol. 2020; 2006. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics: Resolution on conscientious objection. vol. 2020; 2006.
26.
go back to reference Chavkin W, Leitman L, Polin K. Conscientious objection and refusal to provide reproductive healthcare: a white paper examining prevalence, health consequences, and policy responses. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123:S41–56.CrossRef Chavkin W, Leitman L, Polin K. Conscientious objection and refusal to provide reproductive healthcare: a white paper examining prevalence, health consequences, and policy responses. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123:S41–56.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Lamb C, Evans M, Babenko-Mould Y, Wong CA, Kirkwood KW. Conscience, conscientious objection, and nursing: a concept analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26:37–49.CrossRef Lamb C, Evans M, Babenko-Mould Y, Wong CA, Kirkwood KW. Conscience, conscientious objection, and nursing: a concept analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26:37–49.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kane R. Conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy: the competing rights of patients and nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17:907–12.CrossRef Kane R. Conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy: the competing rights of patients and nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17:907–12.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Organisation for Economic Development (OECD): Number of midwives. 2019. Organisation for Economic Development (OECD): Number of midwives. 2019.
31.
go back to reference Sulmasy D. Tolerance, professional judgment, and the discretionary space of the physician. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2017;26:18–31.CrossRef Sulmasy D. Tolerance, professional judgment, and the discretionary space of the physician. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2017;26:18–31.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Accommodating conscientious objection in the midwifery workforce: a ratio-data analysis of midwives, birth and late abortions in 18 European countries in 2016
Authors
Valerie Fleming
Clare Maxwell
Beate Ramsayer
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Human Resources for Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-00482-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Human Resources for Health 1/2020 Go to the issue