Two Catholic midwives from Scotland have won the right to refuse to take part in abortion in any way.

The two women, sisters Mary Doogan, 58, and Concepta Wood, 52, have been engaged in a long-running legal battle to assert their legal right to conscientiously object to assisting in the abortion procedure, the Daily Telegraph reports.

The ruling, by the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session (equivalent to the English Court of Appeal) held that the conscientious objection clause in s4 Abortion Act 1967 allows medical staff to refuse to participate in any aspects of Abortion \”treatment\”.

Ms Doogan and Ms Wood said that their right to conscientious objection should extend to refusing to delegate, supervise or support members of staff who were looking after women undergoing terminations.

They had lost a previous case against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde when the court ruled their human rights were not affected as they were not directly involved in the procedures.

The case, which was brought as a judicial review against a decision by the health board, had been rejected at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year.

However, appeal judges have now overturned the ruling in favour of the midwives, who worked as labour ward co-ordinators at Glasgow’s Southern General Hospital.

Lady Dorrian, who heard the challenge with Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord McEwan, said the right of conscientious objection should extend not only to the actual medical or surgical abortions “but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose”.

Miss Doogan and Mrs Wood, both from Glasgow, each have more than 20 years of experience and objected on religious grounds to participating in abortion procedures on the basis of their belief that the unborn child has a right to life.

They issued a statement saying they were “absolutely delighted” by the judgement, adding: “In holding all life to be sacred from conception to natural death, as midwives we have always worked in the knowledge we have two lives to care for throughout labour; a mother and that of her unborn child.

“Today\’s judgement is a welcome affirmation of the rights of all midwives to withdraw from a practice that would violate their conscience and which over time, would indeed debar many from entering what has always been a very rewarding and noble profession.

“It is with great relief we can now return to considerations that are all to do with child birth and midwifery practice and less to do with legal matters.”

The pair set out their conscientious objection, under the 1967 Abortion Act, a number of years ago and claimed in court that before 2007 they were not called on to delegate, supervise or support staff dealing with abortions.

They said the health board then introduced changes that meant all patients undergoing abortions had to be treated and cared for in the labour ward, where they worked, rather than the gynaecology ward.

They claimed management later took the view that conscientious objectors were permitted to withdraw from administering abortion-inducing drugs, but were required to provide care for patients.

Lady Smith, who heard the initial case, said in her judgement last year that they were “not being asked to play any direct role in bringing about terminations of pregnancy\”.

The women appealed and their counsel Gerry Moynihan QC told the appeal court that, as part of a team, their right to conscientious objection extended to all duties.

He added that because the midwives let the board know of their objection in advance, it could have managed its staff to respect their rights.

Mr Moynihan told the court: “The administrative convenience of the health board is irrelevant because the right is a balance between facilitating abortion while respecting the genuine conscientious objection of medical, nursing and ancillary staff.\”