Conscientious objection

We are monitoring cases and any proposed legislation to make sure the right is restricted to an individual and not imposed where it restricts the rights of others. For example, with assisted dying, we urged the committee reviewing the Terminally Ill Adults Bill to enable conscientious objection without obstructing access, and we are pleased that that is what is set to happen.

In depth

Conscientious objection is not a new concept and, for example, humanists and religious people alike have exercised their right to refuse to go to war at times of conscription. Historically, conscientious objectors have suffered some sort of penalty for making a refusal on matters of conscience.

Today, an increasing number of claims are being taken through the judicial system in an attempt to establish a right to a degree of religious exceptionalism that risks prejudicing the rights of other people. Although those asking for accommodation of their beliefs may use the term ‘conscientious objection’, there are only three instances in UK law where there is a clear legal right for individuals to object on grounds of conscience, namely regarding abortion, technological procedures to achieve conception and pregnancy (e.g. IVF treatment), and military service in times of conscription. If assisted dying becomes legal, that would be a fourth area. No other statutory instances, such as religious symbols in workplaces, dispensing contraception, or civil ceremonies, carry explicit legal rights to conscientious objection under UK law. These are better described as claims for religious or moral exemptions and are not equivalent to statutorily protected conscience rights.

None of these are simple issues and we believe that a fair balance must be struck between the manifestation or expression of belief and the rights of others where there is a conflict.

There are also some places where religious organisations can object to behaving in certain ways, for example refusing to hire someone as a priest who is not of the faith, or refusing to provide same-sex marriages. We consider these as part of our page about Equality Act exemptions. But the places where individual conscientious objection rights currently exist in law should not also extend to religious organisations involved in relevant spheres.

What we’re doing

We work to expose claims of alleged religious discrimination that are in fact the proper restrictions on religious behaviour that is unlawful or unjustifiably infringes the rights of others whether in employment, service provision or elsewhere. We are part of the Religion and Belief Literacy Standard Advisory Group, which is looking at religion or belief literacy in the workplace.

We have also worked to resist periodic legislative attempts to further enable people to conscientiously object around abortion in particular, for example to extend rights to those not directly involved in provision in ways that would make it difficult to continue to access abortion.

With regard to assisted dying, we submitted evidence to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, urging it to enable conscientious objection without obstructing access. We recommended that healthcare professionals be allowed to conscientiously object, provided it does not infringe or hinder access to assisted dying. Premises owners, including care home operators, should not have the right to refuse an assisted death on their premises, as this could unjustly limit individuals’ choices. Otherwise, such a clause could stop people from being able to die at home, if they so wish. Thankfully, the Bill is proceeding on this basis.

In 2022, we responded to the Jersey consultation on assisted dying, stating that ‘We believe it is right in this instance that conscientious objection should be framed to mirror the existing termination of pregnancy law. However, we are concerned that in some cases, both in the UK and internationally, conscientious objection has been misinterpreted and abused so as to allow people with religious convictions to not fully comply with the requirements of their employment or to disrupt public health and safety. On such occasions, an individual’s freedom of conscience can and should be balanced against the rights of others.’

The proposal subsequently published by the States Assembly states that ‘The right of any person to conscientiously object and decline to participate does not, however, extend to obstructing the choice of a person who wishes to have an assisted death. This means that a care professional, who is providing care to a patient who wishes to seek information about assisting dying, will be required to signpost a patient to the assisted dying service.’ However, disappointingly, it proceeds to state that the bill will be amended to ‘extend the definition of direct participation to include both professionals providing supporting opinions or assessments and premises operators.’

Appendix: Past work on this issue

• In 2018, we worked with the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to produce new guidance on religion and belief discrimination in the workplace, which provides much clearer advice for employers on the limited circumstances in which such discrimination can be justified.
• In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that Ashers Bakery, a bakery chain in Northern Ireland, was within its rights to refuse to bake a cake for a gay man on the basis that it supported same-sex marriage, because of the owners’ Christian beliefs. The man in question appealed the case to the European Court of Human Rights, but lost in 2022. We regret this decision. The chain was not explicitly Christian and the staff member who initially took the order had no problems fulfilling it.
• In 2016, we worked with the General Pharmaceutical Council and responded to its consultation on the new guidance on conscientious objections in pharmacies. The General Pharmaceutical Council subsequently adopted the person-centred approach to healthcare that we recommended.
• We worked with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on its 2016 guidance on religion or belief in the workplace, which includes times when people might object to certain working conditions and how to manage that.
• In 2014, two Catholic midwives challenged their employer’s requirement to support staff involved in abortion procedures. The midwives, working as labour ward co-ordinators, argued that their conscientious objection to abortion extended to all aspects of the process, including supervision and support. The UK Supreme Court, overturning previous rulings, ultimately decided that the midwives were not legally entitled to refuse to support other staff involved in abortions.
• In 2013, we spoke out against the cases at the European Court of Human Rights of Lilian Ladele, an Islington registrar who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies; Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor who refused to counsel same-sex couples; and Shirley Chaplin, an NHS nurse who refused to wear a cross on a pin instead of a chain, as was required for health and safety reasons. The three lost their cases.
• In 2010 and 2012, we opposed attempts to establish wider exemptions for religious people from the Equality Act 2010 to ‘accommodate’ currently unlawful behaviour on alleged grounds of conscience. In 2015 we similarly opposed the ‘Freedom of Conscience’ Bill proposed in Northern Ireland.
• In 2011, the Humanist Philosophers Group, which we convene, published Right to Object? Conscientious Objection and Religious Conviction, featuring perspectives on a range of contemporary issues related to conscientious objection.

We are also campaigning to advance freedom of expression through the repeal of blasphemy laws.