Christian doctors may face greater restrictions on what they can say about their faith, it is being claimed.
Concerns are arising because of revised regulatory guidance on personal beliefs and medical practice, and the potential implications for evangelical medics and others.
The draft guidance was first put out for consultation in March by the General Medical Council (GMC).
Now, Christian Concern has warned that the new GMC guidance could “undermine freedom of religion and conscience” for health professionals, “create a chilling effect”, and lead to greater restrictions on Christian doctors.
The GMC states that the guidance – which has not been fully updated since 2013 – does not cover beliefs expressed outside work. But the amendments refer to maintaining “public confidence” – blurring the boundary between work and outside of the workplace.
Further, new guidance on freedom of expression (published in May by the British Medical Association) says: “Medical professionalism extends beyond the workplace into your private life and the public sphere … In the public sphere … you are free to express your views within certain limits.” And it cites several examples of freedom of expression cases involving Christians.
Several of the draft amendments appear ambiguous. For example, clinicians will be restricted from “imposing their own beliefs” on patients – but fails to define what amounts to “imposing” in practice.
In its response to the consultation, the Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) has welcomed the recognition of the importance of personal beliefs to patients and medics, but said this should be universally recognised throughout the guidance, rather than qualified (as currently drafted).
The CMF is also concerned that the draft guidance is a “significant shift” from the acknowledgement (in the existing version) that all doctors have personal values affecting their practice, to a distinction between those “whose practice is shaped by beliefs and those whose practice is value-neutral.”
It added: “In reality, no such distinction exists”, and this “risks some beliefs being scrutinised, while others remain implicit and unexamined, potentially leading to unequal treatment”.
The CMF raised particular concern about a weakening of the application of conscientious objection. It said doctors could be compelled to participate in interventions they regard as seriously unethical, [risking] undermining both professional integrity and public trust”.
Those concerns are even more significant in light of the reintroduction of the assisted suicide bill. The CMF urged the GMC to remove this proposed amendment.
The proposals also say clinicians “must not allow your personal views or beliefs to affect … the treatment you provide”. However, the CMF highlighted the disparity between that statement and the guidance recognising conscientious objection on the basis of personal beliefs”.
The CMF asked for more clarity on the relationship between clinical opinion and personal beliefs – particularly where “profound ethical questions” arise.
The British Islamic Medical Association said in its consultation response: “[The guidance] risks enforcing a narrow, secular model of care, rather than recognising faith-informed care as a legitimate component of holistic, patient-centred practice.”
The GMC is reviewing the responses and final guidance will be issued in due course.
