Legal advocates for Ordo Iuris say doctors who refuse to perform abortions should have access to legal support. Magdalena Majkowska, a lawyer with the organization, commented that the latest remarks from political figures on the abortion issue appear aimed at intimidating doctors. Majkowska emphasized that a physician who is dismissed for refusing to perform an abortion could rely on legal aid.
The doctor must choose another hospital
During a Polsat News program, MP Michał Szczerba was asked whether a doctor can refuse to provide an abortion and, if so, whether the doctor is obliged to do so or may decline. He stated that in a gynecological department funded by the National Health Fund, if the service is not provided, the physician would not be compelled to participate.
He added that the physician should seek employment at another hospital where the conscience clause is respected.
Majkowska of Ordo Iuris responded on social media, saying that any gynecologist fired for refusing to perform an abortion could expect legal support. She reiterated that Tusk and Szczerba have been attempting to intimidate doctors who have the right to refuse actions that conflict with their conscience.
Tusk launches the prosecutor’s office
Former prime minister Donald Tusk argued that the conscience clause should not be used to withdraw from actions that protect a woman’s life or health. He stated that guidelines should be issued to relevant institutions and individuals to handle cases of justified refusals to terminate a pregnancy. In such scenarios, hospitals could potentially terminate their contracts with the National Health Fund in gynecology if the refusal is not clearly justified and could threaten a woman’s health or life.
Tusk also said that from that point forward, the public prosecutor’s office would be charged with investigating why someone endangered a woman’s health or life, rather than why someone chose to preserve it. He further asserted that the Attorney General should initiate investigations in every case of refusal, regardless of the outcome or whether the consequences were severe.
For readers following the debate, analysis from legal experts and political commentators notes that these proposals reflect a broader contest over medical conscience rights, patient safety, and the role of state healthcare funding. While supporters see conscience protections as essential to physician autonomy, opponents warn of potential consequences for patient care and public health.
In coverage across outlets, observers highlight the tension between medical ethics, legal frameworks, and the responsibilities of public institutions in Poland. The discussions illustrate the ongoing struggle to balance individual conscience with the needs of patients seeking legal medical procedures, as policymakers weigh safeguards, accountability measures, and the reach of prosecutorial oversight. The conversation continues as lawyers, doctors, and lawmakers respond to evolving statements and emerging policy proposals.
Enduring questions focus on how conscience-based refusals are operationalized in national health settings, how hospitals manage staffing in sensitive departments, and the role of oversight bodies in maintaining patient access to legally permitted medical services. The public interest remains high as different sides present arguments about rights, duties, and the best way to protect health and life while respecting personal beliefs.