Advanced

Samvetsfrihet, rätten till abort och patientsäkerheten - vad väger tyngst?

Alderin, Maria LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Frågan om samvetsfrihet inom abortvården är ett mycket aktuellt diskussions-ämne i Sverige. Vi saknar lagregleringar på området och det är osäkert huruvida man som anställd barnmorska har rätt till samvetsfrihet. Uppsatsen tar sikte på att utreda vad gällande rätt i Sverige är när det kommer till om en barnmorskas rätt till samvetsfrihet går före en kvinnas rätt till abort samt patientsäkerhet. För att kunna undersöka detta gick jag igenom ett svenskt rättsfall och jämförde detta med praxis från Europadomstolen.
I Sverige gäller §32-principen som ger arbetsgivare en rätt att leda och för-dela arbetet så länge de håller sig inom ramen för arbetstagarens anställning. Denna fördelning av arbetet går ej att ifrågasätta till den del den... (More)
Frågan om samvetsfrihet inom abortvården är ett mycket aktuellt diskussions-ämne i Sverige. Vi saknar lagregleringar på området och det är osäkert huruvida man som anställd barnmorska har rätt till samvetsfrihet. Uppsatsen tar sikte på att utreda vad gällande rätt i Sverige är när det kommer till om en barnmorskas rätt till samvetsfrihet går före en kvinnas rätt till abort samt patientsäkerhet. För att kunna undersöka detta gick jag igenom ett svenskt rättsfall och jämförde detta med praxis från Europadomstolen.
I Sverige gäller §32-principen som ger arbetsgivare en rätt att leda och för-dela arbetet så länge de håller sig inom ramen för arbetstagarens anställning. Denna fördelning av arbetet går ej att ifrågasätta till den del den håller sig inom lagen. I Sverige är det förbjudet att diskriminera anställda eller arbetssökande p.g.a. bland annat religion genom diskrimineringslagen (DL). Samvetsfriheten och religionsfriheten är dessutom skyddad genom art 9 Europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (EKMR). Frågan om rätt till samvetsfrihet har prövats i Arbetsdomstolen (AD) genom fallet Grimmark. Där slår AD fast att Grimmark, genom att ha blivit ne-kad anställning p.g.a. vägran att utföra abort, varken har utsatts för direkt eller indirekt diskriminering. Detta eftersom indirekt diskriminering kan tillåtas om åtgärden som vidtagits haft ett berättigat syfte samt varit lämplig och nödvändig för att uppnå syftet. Denna prövning står i överensstämmelse med den prövning som görs för inskränkningar i religionsutövning enligt art 9.2 EKMR, därmed står prövningen enligt DL i överensstämmelse med en prövning enligt EKMR. Sverige har en skyldighet att tillhandahålla abortvård till kvinnor snarast möjlig-ast samt se till att det finns stöd dygnet runt på regionernas kvinnokliniker. Denna skyldighet faller inom kravet på god vård och patientsäkerhet och skapar ett berättigat syfte för att ställa krav på att alla barnmorskor ska kunna utföra ab-ort. Europadomstolen har ej tidigare prövat frågan men har avgjort fall där en in-divids religionsfrihet ställts mot en annan individs rättigheter. Då har man vid proportionalitetsbedömningen gett ett större tolkningsutrymme till staten om frågan har rört två rättigheter som ställts emot varandra. Inom arbetsrättens om-råde har Europadomstolen även sagt att man ska ta vikt vid en arbetstagares möj-lighet att byta arbete. Detta tillsammans med det faktum att Europadomstolen i tidigare fall gett arbetsgivaren ett stort utrymme att förbjuda viss religionsutöv-ning i yrkeslivet om det görs för att skydda andra personers rättigheter, leder mig till slutsatsen att det ej strider mot gällande rätt att neka samvetsfrihet inom svensk abortvård. (Less)
Abstract
In Sweden there’s an ongoing discussion whether or not a person within the health profession should have a right to conscience when it comes to performing abortions. There are no regulations on the subject and therefore no clear guide-lines on what is right and what is not. The question is what kind of demands an employer can make towards her employees when it comes to performing abor-tions and whether or not these demands stands in unity with art 9 ECHR and the right to religion and conscience?
To answer this question I looked at a case that recently had been given a ver-dict in Sweden and compared it to case law from the European court. Ellinor Grimmark lodged a claim at the court of labour due to the fact that she had been denied... (More)
In Sweden there’s an ongoing discussion whether or not a person within the health profession should have a right to conscience when it comes to performing abortions. There are no regulations on the subject and therefore no clear guide-lines on what is right and what is not. The question is what kind of demands an employer can make towards her employees when it comes to performing abor-tions and whether or not these demands stands in unity with art 9 ECHR and the right to religion and conscience?
To answer this question I looked at a case that recently had been given a ver-dict in Sweden and compared it to case law from the European court. Ellinor Grimmark lodged a claim at the court of labour due to the fact that she had been denied employment as a midwife at several hospitals because she refused to per-form abortions. She felt like it was a discrimination towards her right to religion and conscience that the region required her to be able to perform abortions for her to be able to work as a midwife. The court of labour didn’t think that it was a case of either direct or indirect discrimination. According to them the denial of employment didn’t depend on her religion but on the fact that she refused to per-form tasks that usually falls within a midwives profession. The requirement that the region upheld was lawful through the employers right to lead and allocate work between her employees. The state has an obligation to uphold and deliver secure care to women who seeks an abortion. This care should be given as fast as possible upon request and be accessible at any time. When there is a case of two rights who are put against each other the European court has given the states big-ger room to decide which of the rights should be put before the other. The Euro-pean court had also concluded in their case law that if abortion is legal according to a state’s national law it could be a violation of art 8 ECHR if the necessary care wasn’t provided. There are no way of knowing how the European court is going to judge in the matter but with the facts that we have it is my opinion that they’re going to dismiss Grimmarks claim. The basis for this is that the court generally is of the opinion that an employee has the possibility to change work if they aren’t satisfied with their employer’s decision. The fact that the court in its case law has established a wide margin of appreciation if the state has to put two rights against each other speaks in the favour of the state of Sweden. It points towards the fact that Sweden has a right to require that all midwifes should be able to perform an abortion. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Alderin, Maria LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Arbetsrätt, Labour Law, Samvetsfrihet, abort
language
Swedish
id
8907998
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 10:44:04
date last changed
2017-06-29 10:44:04
@misc{8907998,
  abstract     = {In Sweden there’s an ongoing discussion whether or not a person within the health profession should have a right to conscience when it comes to performing abortions. There are no regulations on the subject and therefore no clear guide-lines on what is right and what is not. The question is what kind of demands an employer can make towards her employees when it comes to performing abor-tions and whether or not these demands stands in unity with art 9 ECHR and the right to religion and conscience? 
To answer this question I looked at a case that recently had been given a ver-dict in Sweden and compared it to case law from the European court. Ellinor Grimmark lodged a claim at the court of labour due to the fact that she had been denied employment as a midwife at several hospitals because she refused to per-form abortions. She felt like it was a discrimination towards her right to religion and conscience that the region required her to be able to perform abortions for her to be able to work as a midwife. The court of labour didn’t think that it was a case of either direct or indirect discrimination. According to them the denial of employment didn’t depend on her religion but on the fact that she refused to per-form tasks that usually falls within a midwives profession. The requirement that the region upheld was lawful through the employers right to lead and allocate work between her employees. The state has an obligation to uphold and deliver secure care to women who seeks an abortion. This care should be given as fast as possible upon request and be accessible at any time. When there is a case of two rights who are put against each other the European court has given the states big-ger room to decide which of the rights should be put before the other. The Euro-pean court had also concluded in their case law that if abortion is legal according to a state’s national law it could be a violation of art 8 ECHR if the necessary care wasn’t provided. There are no way of knowing how the European court is going to judge in the matter but with the facts that we have it is my opinion that they’re going to dismiss Grimmarks claim. The basis for this is that the court generally is of the opinion that an employee has the possibility to change work if they aren’t satisfied with their employer’s decision. The fact that the court in its case law has established a wide margin of appreciation if the state has to put two rights against each other speaks in the favour of the state of Sweden. It points towards the fact that Sweden has a right to require that all midwifes should be able to perform an abortion.},
  author       = {Alderin, Maria},
  keyword      = {Arbetsrätt,Labour Law,Samvetsfrihet,abort},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Samvetsfrihet, rätten till abort och patientsäkerheten - vad väger tyngst?},
  year         = {2017},
}