"x x x.
Duty to refer. Some provisions of the Reproductive Health Law commonly mandate that a hospital or a medical practitioner immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs. In this case, the conscientious objector’s claim to religious freedom would warrant an exemption from the obligation to refer under the RH Law, unless the government succeeds in demonstrating a more compelling state interest in the accomplishment of an important secular objective.
“Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a patient seeking information on modern reproductive health products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act against his beliefs.
“The same holds true with respect to nonmaternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and healthcare service providers. Considering that Section 24 of the RH Law penalizes such institutions should they fail or refuse to comply with their duty to refer under Section 7 and Section 23(a)(3), the Court deems that it must be struck down for being violative of the freedom of religion. The same applies to Section 23(a)(l) and (a)(2) in relation to Section 24, considering that in the dissemination of information regarding programs and services and in the performance of reproductive health procedures, the religious freedom of healthcare service providers should be respected.
“All this notwithstanding, the Court properly recognizes a valid exception set forth in the law in life-threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger. ”
In a conflict situation between the life of the mother and the life of the child, the Court recognizes the applicability of the principle of double effect. A doctor is obliged to try to save both lives. However, he can act in favor of one (not necessarily the mother) when it is medically impossible to save both, provided that no direct harm is intended to the other.
x x x."
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/75435/the-supreme-court-decision-on-the-rh-law-2#ixzz347uI4zd2
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
