Chile: Catholic Church denounces illegality in new regulations on conscientious objection

The Episcopal Conference of Chile denounced a series of “unconstitutional and illegal” provisions in Regulation No. 22 of the Ministry of Health, published in May 2024, which modifies Supreme Decree No. 67 of 2018 that approved the exercise of the objection of awareness of health professionals.

In a document presented before the Comptroller General of the Republic, the bishops recall that conscientious objection is a fundamental human right rooted in freedom of conscience, and that it is enshrined by the Constitution.

This freedom protects both natural persons and institutions that want to refuse to carry out acts contrary to their ethical, moral, religious, professional or other convictions.

In that sense, they point out some points that are neither reasonable nor objective in the new regulations.

Firstly, and contrary to what the Health Code says, the regulation only allows the surgeon to exercise their right to conscientious objection but not the medical personnel who perform functions within the surgical pavilion where the abortion is performed, which “imposes arbitrary discrimination”, recognizing the right of some professionals and not others.

At the same time, the regulations arbitrarily favor non-objectors, by determining that “the health establishment may consider the fact of not being a conscientious objector as a positive factor in the hiring of personnel, in order to evaluate their suitability.” for the position.”

The members of the Episcopate identify discrimination there “due to the moral or religious beliefs of the medical personnel – which affect their availability – and not their suitability.”

For this reason, there is talk of “unconstitutional and illegal” provisions that contravene both articles of the Constitution and Law No. 20,609, known as the “Anti-discrimination Law.”

The new regulation also imposes “bureaucratic and burdensome” requirements that make it “disproportionately” difficult to exercise the right to exercise conscientious objection, such as the existence of a single official form, and the obligation to express conscientious objection in each health facility in which professionals perform.

The measures listed “impose conditions that make difficult and/or discourage the free exercise of the right to conscientious objection,” the bishops summarize, insisting on “arbitrary discrimination” and the incentive for professionals not to be conscientious objectors.

For this reason, the prelates assure that “the approval of the Regulation would mean the detriment of the fundamental right of conscience and to live according to one’s religious convictions,” and request that its “unconstitutionality and illegality” be declared.