Doctors protest against limitations on conscientious objection in Puebla, Mexico

Doctors and health professionals who are conscientious objectors demonstrated this Wednesday in front of the Congress of the state of Puebla (Mexico) to urge legislators not to approve an initiative that, according to them, could “make the exercise” of this right impossible.

Through a statementthe Mexican Federation of Conscientious Objection (FEMOC) expressed its concern about the proposal presented by representative Nayeli Salvatori, from the MORENA parliamentary group, the political party that governs the state and the presidency of Mexico.

The FEMOC pointed out that this legislative proposal “appears to recognize the right to conscientious objection, introducing ambiguous limitations that could make its real exercise impossible.”

“This initiative does not represent progress, but rather a regression in terms of professional freedom and medical ethics. Regulating awareness from legal ambiguity does not strengthen the health system, it violates it,” the statement indicated.

Likewise, it proposes including conscientious objection in the State Health Lawbut establishes that “it may not be invoked when the life of the user is at risk, it causes sequelae or disabilities, it is a medical emergency, it implies a risk to health or its aggravation, or there is no viable or accessible alternative to provide a timely and quality service.”

Furthermore, in cases of abortion, the proposal establishes that medical personnel “are obliged to respect the will of the user and guarantee the safe termination of pregnancy in the maximum possible degree of health protection.”

The discussion comes after abortion was decriminalized up to 12 weeks of gestation in Puebla, following the reform of the Penal Code approved on July 15, 2024 and which came into force on August 16 of that year.

“Restrictive” regulation

In their position, the objectors warned that with terms such as “’health risk’, ‘viable or accessible alternative’ or ‘timely and quality service’, the text leaves room for discretionary interpretations that can convert a human right into a conditioned procedure, subject to political or administrative decisions.”

The statement assures that conscientious objection “does not impede medical care, it guarantees it with integrity.” In this sense, they indicated that forcing a doctor to “act against his conscience does not make him more professional, it dehumanizes him and a system that pursues conscience stops being a health system and becomes an ideological apparatus.”

Dr. Miriam Gil, a member of the federation, warned that the lack of legal precision could lead to “abuse and pressure against health professionals.”

“A hospital with few staff or without resources could claim that ‘there is no viable alternative’ and force the doctor to act against his conscience. If this wording is approved, Puebla would have the most restrictive regulation in the country regarding conscientious objection,” he exemplified.

Likewise, Dr. Gil called for “an open parliament, so that each legislator can listen to the opinions of doctors and health personnel, who could be affected by this initiative.” With the intention of “providing a conciliatory perspective that respects the rights of those of us who have the vocation to save lives.”