Reading Abortion Act, $4 Doogan and Wood v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] CSIH 36 Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Wood [2014] UKSC 68 Mary Neal, "When Conscience Isn't Clear: Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and An- other [2014] UKSC 68", Medical Law Review (2015) 1-15 Alistair Henderson, "Conscientious objection to abortion: Catholic midwives lose in the Supreme Court", UK Human Rights blog, 28 Dec 2014 http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/28/conscientious-objection-to-abortion-catholic-mid- wives-lose-in-supreme-court/ Human Reproduction and the Law - Abortion Law and Conscientious Objection 1. In Doogan and Wood v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2013] CSIH 36 the Inner House of the Court of Session upheld the appeal of two Catholic midwives working as labour ward co-ordinators, who objected to supervising staff on a hospital ward where abortions are conducted. They relied upon section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. What reasons does the Court give for its ruling? 2. Doogan was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the Health Board in 2014. Why did it do so? What approach did the Court take to the issue? What interpretation of $4 of the 1967 Act did the Court adopt? 3. Why does Mary Neal (commenting on the case in the Medical Law Review) criticise the approach taken by Lady Hale in Doogan? What aspect of the case does Alistair Henderson, writing on the UK Human Rights blog, think the Supreme Court neglected? Do you agree