A truly remarkable case is reported in The Irish Catholic this week, involving a doctor who was called before the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Irish Medical Council (IMC) on a professional misconduct charge for carrying out his practice according to his Catholic beliefs.

Dr Phil Boyle operates out of Galway Clinic, a Catholic hospital. He offers a fertility treatment service to couples experiencing difficulty conceiving. The treatment is fully consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As part of this, he offers the treatment only to married couples.

Needless to say, there are also practical and not merely dogmatic or moral reasons for this stance. Cohabiting couples break up much more often than married couples, meaning those who have a proper interest in the welfare of the child should restrict fertility treatment to married couples.

Last year, a cohabiting couple contacted Dr Boyle's practice asking to be treated by him. They were told the treatment is only offered to married people. The couple reacted to this by making a complaint against Dr Boyle to the IMC's Fitness to Practice Committee on the grounds of 'professional misconduct'. Incredibly, the Committee agreed to hear the charge and Dr Boyle appeared before the Committee last week.

What the charge amounted to was this; Dr Boyle was guilty of misconduct for following his Catholic conscience.

In the end, Dr Boyle was acquitted, but only on a technicality, it seems. The Committee does not appear to have recognised his right to treat only married couples in accordance with his beliefs, and in accordance with the evidence that shows there is good reason to favour married couples.

But Dr Boyle's ordeal may not yet be over. He could be investigated by the Equality Authority on the grounds that he is guilty of 'discrimination' under the Equal Status Act.

His case is similar to a raft of other ones in Britain, and elsewhere, where Christians have found themselves being prosecuted under various new 'equality' laws.

The Irish medical profession now needs to decide whether it is happy with the treatment of Dr Boyle. Is it happy that a colleague can be treated in this way because of his Catholic beliefs, or are Catholic doctors, who wish to follow their consciences freely and properly and in all reasonable respects no longer fully welcome in the profession?

It is now clear that the Ethical Guidelines of the Medical Council need to be amended to properly recognise conscientious objection, and that the Equal Status Act must also be amended to recognise freedom of conscience and religion.