This week’s ruling in Scotland which found in favour of two midwives who insisted on their right to conscientiously object to taking any part in the abortion process is one that should be welcomed by all who think this freedom is important, whatever their views on abortion itself.

The two women, Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood, have been engaged in a long-running battle to assert their right to refuse to delegate, supervise or support members of staff involved in performing abortion or in preparing women for abortions.

In a previous case against their employers, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the court ruled that their religious freedom was not affected as because the women themselves were not involved to take part in the abortion procedure itself.

However the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session held 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”. 

One of the arguments used by the legal team for the NHS was that, if you allowed for conscientious objection in every case, patients would be denied all sorts of treatments.

But sensibly, the Court in this instance found that, while people of faith cannot have an automatic right to refuse to carry out a particular procedure, employers should strive to avoid placing believers in situations in which they are forced to make incredibly painful choices between their deeply held beliefs and their work.

They endorsed this rather sensible finding made by a South African Court in 2001. In that case, the judge said “believers cannot claim an automatic right to be exempted by their beliefs from the laws of the land”. 

However, he continued: “At the same time, the state should, wherever reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or else respectful of the law.”

In other words, employers should strive, notwithstanding any managerial inconvenience caused, to provide a reasonable accomodation to their religious employees.

If religious freedom is to mean anything, this is surely the least that people of sincere religious conviction should be able to expect. Otherwise, we will end up excluding people of faith from medicine, and possibly a series of other professions such as education and law.