Medical authority faces legal action over enforced abortion prohibition
In a contested case that highlights the intersection of religious influence and medical autonomy, Joachim Volz, the chief physician of the Lippstadt Clinic, has found himself at odds with the clinic's Catholic sponsor over an abortion ban.
The Lippstadt Clinic has prohibited medically indicated abortions since February 2025, even in cases of severe fetal malformations. This ban, which has been met with opposition from patients, medical professionals, and politicians alike, has led to a legal dispute between Volz and the clinic's management.
During a demonstration before the court hearing, approximately 2,000 people marched, demanding "Church, let the women free" and "Help and self-determination instead of punishment." Sarah Gonschorek (Greens), the organizer of the demo, felt the ban was a great injustice towards the affected women, and politicians from federal and state levels in North Rhine-Westphalia also attended, including Britta Haßelmann, the Greens' co-faction leader.
Volz, in his lawsuit against the Catholic sponsor of the clinic, argued for the right to perform medically necessary abortions. However, the labor court in Hamm dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the employer is entitled to the measures taken. The court did acknowledge that medically indicated abortions are not categorically banned in the clinic, but are still permitted in part, with exceptions when the life of the mother or the unborn child is acutely threatened, and there is no medically possible alternative to save the life of the unborn child.
The case of Joachim Volz at the Lippstadt Clinic illustrates how religious sponsorship of hospitals can impact medical autonomy and restrict abortion rights. Religious hospital sponsors, such as Catholic orders, typically impose ethical guidelines aligned with their religious beliefs, which often restrict or forbid abortion and certain reproductive health services. This can create conflicts between the medical duty to provide comprehensive care and religious rules that limit clinical options or force physicians to refrain from abortion services or refer patients elsewhere.
In the specific example of Joachim Volz at the Lippstadt Clinic, the involvement of a religious sponsor likely influenced hospital policy or culture in a way that limited his ability to exercise full medical autonomy regarding abortion care. Such cases spotlight the tension between religious institutional control and secular medical ethics, where physicians may experience constraints on their treatment decisions to conform to religious doctrines rather than solely medical considerations.
More broadly, religious sponsorship of hospitals often means that certain medical procedures like abortion are unavailable or heavily restricted within these facilities, even if legally permitted. This can limit patient access to abortion care, require referrals to secular hospitals, and create ethical dilemmas for medical personnel caught between institutional policies and professional obligations.
This dynamic reflects a larger debate in healthcare about preserving medical autonomy and patient rights in religiously affiliated institutions, emphasizing the challenges faced when religious values shape healthcare delivery and policy, especially on sensitive issues like abortion. The Lippstadt Clinic example with Joachim Volz underscores these complex implications.
Volz, who has failed in his lawsuit, has expressed optimism that "reason and humanity will prevail" in the legal dispute. He has also started a petition under the title "I am a doctor - my help is not a sin!" which has gained over 232,000 signatures. Despite the setback, Volz has stated that resignation is not an option for him, and he will likely appeal the court's decision to the next judicial instance.
[1] [Source] [2] [Source]
- The Lippstadt Clinic's ban on medically indicated abortions, despite opposition, has led to a dispute over religious influence and medical autonomy, especially in the realm of women's health, sexual health, and mental health.
- The scientific community, advocates, and politicians have expressed concern about the impact of religious sponsorship on health-and-wellness services, such as abortion care, due to its potential to restrict clinical options and limit patient access.
- In light of the Lippstadt Clinic case, public discourse has focused on the broader implications of religious influence in healthcare, emphasizing the importance of maintaining medical autonomy and upholding patient rights within religiously affiliated institutions.
