Medical staff in Sweden have been denied conscientious objection rights on life matters following a decision from the European Committee of Social Rights.

The committee had been asked by the European Federation of Catholic Family Associations (FAFCE) in 2013 to adjudicate on the lack of rights for medical practitioners in the country who do not want to take part in abortions.

This lack of conscience rights, FAFCE argued, was contrary to Resolution 1763 which was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in 2011. That resolution affirmed the place of conscientious objection in a medical context and called on member states to properly regulate conscientious objection.

However, the resolution is non-binding, and the committee was unable to force the Swedish government to go further in protecting conscientious objection.

In its response to the FAFCE submission, the Swedish government had already insisted that freedom of conscience should be discussed in the work place and that if the issue could be resolved in this manner for the employee, it could be brought before courts, based on article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is incorporated into the Swedish law and on the grounds of the anti-discrimination law for the individual.

The government further argued that the issue of objection in Sweden was “theoretical” and denied that it had found areas in which conscientious objection to be problematic.

However, pro-life supporters have pointed to the case of Swedish midwife, Ellinor Grimmark, who lost her job and was refused employment due to her refusal to perform abortions as part of her tasks as a midwife at several Swedish hospitals.

“This is a concrete case that proves that freedom of conscience for medical staff is all but a theoretical problem in Sweden”, said Ruth Nordström, the legal representative for Grimmark.

In a statement following the committee’s adjudication, Tomas Seidal of FAFCE said: “The issue of abortion has been, is and will remain controversial for us who work in medical care, since it is a unique intervention with the consequence of putting an end to a human life. We also consider that the issue becomes particularly complicated when the unborn child is the object of medical care in other circumstances, and as such a patient with the right to life and health care. If it collides with a strongly established conviction and belief against extinguishing a life at its beginning, there must be room for conscientious freedom.”