Olivia Willis
speaker
783 appearances
14 recordings
2 series
first heard Oct 2017
last heard May 2021
Olivia Willis’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
The Federal Government's proposed Religious Freedom Bill is expected to be finalised this month after two rounds of feedback from LGBTI advocates and religious groups.
As it stands, the bill would allow religious bodies such as hospitals and aged care providers to continue to hire people on the basis of their religion.
It would also let healthcare workers object to carrying out medical procedures such as abortions or fertility treatment on religious grounds, provided they refuse to do so for all patients.
It's unclear exactly how the legislation will interact with existing state and territory guidelines, but some health bodies, including the AMA, say it could undermine patient access to healthcare.
Danielle Matzer is a Professor of General Practice at Monash University, where she's also the Primary Chief Investigator at the Centre of Research Excellence in Sexual and Reproductive Health for Women.
And she's been following this debate around the Religious Freedom Bill closely.
Danielle, welcome to The Health Report.
Thank you.
Before we get to the proposed bill, what do we know about how religious beliefs might influence the provision of things like contraception or reproductive health care in our system as it stands?
If a treatment like that, abortion services or contraceptive services, for example, if a treatment is refused under the current system, what obligation do doctors and healthcare professionals have in terms of referring patients on?
When you say that a healthcare practitioner could, under this new legislation, potentially object to not just a medical procedure but a health service, what's the distinction there?
this the kind of crux of what the concern is?
Because as you say, in several states, doctors already have the right to conscientiously object to various different treatments based on religious grounds.
But the concern here is that they may choose to object, but then they're not actually required to give the whole gamut of healthcare information or accessibility of services.
They're not required to refer patients and they might not be required to tell them the information they need to make a decision.
Given that, do you think that, you know, can you foresee the changes potentially having more of an impact on when it comes to reproductive health on women in regional areas, for example, where there are already more limited services available or limited access to treatment?
Danielle, just finally, I'm wondering here what, in your perspective, what the solution is.
I mean, how do we balance ensuring that doctors have a right to object to medical procedures on the basis of religious grounds, but also ensure that patient healthcare is prioritised?
Do we have that balance right?
Danielle, thank you so much for your time.
Showing 261–280 of 783 · page 14 of 40
← Previous
Next →