Reading Abortion Act, $4 Doogan and Wood v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] CSIH 36 Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Wood [2014] UKSC

Reading
Abortion Act, $4
Doogan and Wood v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] CSIH 36
Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Wood [2014] UKSC 68
Mary Neal, "When Conscience Isn’t Clear: Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and An-
other [2014] UKSC 68", Medical Law Review (2015) 1-15
Alistair Henderson, "Conscientious objection to abortion: Catholic midwives lose in the
Supreme Court", UK Human Rights blog, 28 Dec 2014
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/28/conscientious-objection-to-abortion-catholic-mid-
wives-lose-in-supreme-court/
Human Reproduction and the Law – Abortion Law and Conscientious Objection
1. In Doogan and Wood v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] CSIH 36 the Inner House of the Court
of Session upheld the appeal of two Catholic midwives working as labour ward co-ordinators, who
objected to supervising staff on a hospital ward where abortions are conducted. They relied upon
section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. reasons does the Court give for its ruling?
2. Doogan was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the Health Board in 2014.
Why did it do so? approach did the Court take to the issue? interpretation of $4 of the
1967 Act did the Court adopt?
3. Why does Mary Neal (commenting on the case in the Medical Law Review) criticise the approach
taken by Lady Hale in Doogan? aspect of the case does Alistair Henderson, writing on the UK
Human Rights blog, think the Supreme Court neglected? Do you agree?