Politicians are obliged to follow their consciences when voting and must disregard the party whip if necessary, moral theologian, Dr John Murray, has said.  

He was addressing a lunchtime meeting organised today in Buswells hotel by The Iona Institute on the issue of ‘Abortion and Conscience’.

The meeting also heard from Dr Donal O’Mathuna, a lecturer in ethics at Dublin City University who criticised the restrictions the proposed abortion bill will place on conscience rights.

Dr Murray told the meeting: “The party whip cannot exempt a legislator from the obligation to follow their conscience, nor should it be used to try and force them to act against their conscience.”

Dr Murray is a lecturer in moral theology at Mater Dei Institute and is chairman of the board of The Iona Institute.

He said: “A legislator is individually responsible for his or her own actions and character: that’s what we mean when we speak of people having a conscience.  

“Legislators are responsible for making laws that serve the common good, laws that promote justice, laws that protect the innocent and vulnerable. So legislators need to know what justice is, and promote only just laws. They must inform their consciences properly on this point.”

He added: “A conscientious person will make use of the best sources of advice and guidance in forming his conscience. That’s why we respect conscience and hold it in such high regard…Conscience speaks of a person’s ethical responsibility to do what is right and good and avoid what is wrong and evil. It applies personally and also professionally. We denigrate it at our peril.”

Dr O Mathuna drew attention to the abortion bill’s refusal via Head 12 to exempt pro-life hospitals from requirement to perform abortions under certain circumstances.  

He said: “Head 12 is problematic in claiming as a ‘fact’ that conscientious objection applies only to individuals and not institutions.  

“In fact, ethics, and sometimes also the law, grants moral agency to institutions and organisations. We blame the banks. We praise our schools. We feel guilty as a nation.  

“Such views uphold the importance for individuals and society that institutional conscience be recognised and institutional conscientious objection be defended.  

“This does not apply to all institutions, but would to those whose purpose is fundamentally moral and whose identity is based on a moral vision. Healthcare organisations and institutions clearly fall within this category.  

He also questioned the requirement under Head 12 that pro-life doctors must refer women seeking an abortion to pro-choice colleagues.

He said: “A physician who refuses to carry out an abortion has an obligation to ensure another colleague takes over the care of the patient. This raises the question of direct and indirect complicity in a moral decision.  

“For example, if someone is asked to commit a crime, and refuses to do so, but then provides the name and telephone number of someone who will, we would hold that person legally complicit in the resulting crime. The same case can be made for morally questionable acts.  

Dr O Mathuna said: “To force a doctor to refer a patient to someone else who will act in ways the first doctor conscientiously objects to is immoral and dangerous.  

“Do we want doctors whose moral consciences are so flexible that they will refer patients to colleagues who will act in ways they believe are morally objectionable? No.

“We want doctors who hold to their moral values strongly enough to object to even being indirectly complicit in what they conscientiously object to. We must remember that in today’s information age, the needed information would be readily accessible.”