Dr. Simon Mills:

I agree with Professor Huxtable. I was probably excessively narrow in identifying the position of junior doctors, but they exemplify one aspect of this concept if we are to properly understand what is meant by conscientious objection, which is the free exercise of will insofar as it is possible to do so within the parameters of the legislation. To some extent, the committee had the dream witness on the matter of conscientious objection in front of it some weeks ago when Dr. Andrea Mulligan was before it. She is one of the authors of the Conscientious Objection after Repeal: Abortion, Law and Ethics, CORALE, study, which looks at the operation of conscientious objection under the abortion legislation. This work is either near publication or has been published. What this may well do is give the committee some insights into how those conscientious provisions are working, and they will probably give the committee a far greater insight than anything I might be able to say.

In addition to the case identified by Professor Huxtable, there has also been a Scottish case. Again, the name of it eludes me. I am sure we are both impressing the committee with our lack of preparation here. The Scottish case concerned a midwife who again asserted the right of conscientious objection in circumstances where she was not being asked to participate in terminations of pregnancies. I will try to find both cases and forward the information to the committee so the members can read about them.