The right to conscientious objection is enshrined in article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In a recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) one also finds that “the right of conscientious objection is a fundamental aspect of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights”.

One would think that there can be nothing clearer than that. Yet, the resolution and recommendation of what has become known as the McCafferty Report – Women’s Access To Lawful Medical Care: The Problem Of Unregulated Use Of Conscientious Objection – being debated at the Council of Europe is seeking, as the title of that report clearly indicates, to “regulate” the use of conscientious objection.

It is deadly serious on a number of counts, not least because the resolution and recommendation appear to contravene not only the ECHR but also the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

There is another count to be taken into consideration and that is the fact that euphemisms like “medical care” and “reproductive healthcare” are stock in trade phrases that embrace, among other matters, abortion, sterilisation, contraception, assisted reproduction and euthanasia.

Delegations from 47 member states – Malta has a delegation of six, three from each political party in Parliament – are being asked to give their assent to provisions that oblige “the healthcare provider to provide the desired treatment to which the patient is legally entitled despite his or her conscientious objection” and, if necessary, to prove “that their objection is grounded in their conscience or religious beliefs, that the refusal is done in good faith”.

There are other egregious recommendations including one that can only be described as blatant discrimination in favour of the “choice” of a pregnant woman to terminate the life of the child she is carrying and against the “choice” of a conscientious objector. This can only lead one to wonder in which direction some members of the Council of Europe are travelling. Down which undemocratic road do they wish to traipse?

There may, of course, be governments that demand of their delegations their assent to the McCafferty Report. Perhaps these need to be reminded of the Nuremberg Principles drawn up in the aftermath of a horror-struck, post-war Europe that had endured so long and bitter a struggle to bring to an end the vile behaviour of the Nazi regime, led by evil men and making evil men out of hundreds of thousands who obeyed the mad conscience of their Fuhrer.

One of the principles is worth quoting: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to the order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

In Malta’s case, no dilemma exists. Neither the government nor the opposition is in any doubt that the right to conscientious objection is a human right, one not to be tampered with. Within the context of this unanimity alone, there can be not a scintilla of doubt that the Maltese representatives in PACE will not accept Ms McCafferty’s flawed report. One also hopes that the majority of the delegations of the remaining 46 states will follow Malta’s example and, likewise, consign it to the waste bin. That one dare not presume.