Victorian doctors who conscientiously object to abortion are breaking the law by failing to refer women on to practitioners who will perform the procedure, leading to some women having abortions later than necessary or having the baby despite wanting a termination.

This was the finding from a study led by associate professor Louise Keogh at the University of Melbourne, who examined whether mandatory referral, introduced in Victoria during abortion law reforms in 2008, was making healthcare more accessible to women.

Keogh worked with Family Planning Victoria, the Royal Women’s Hospital and Women’s Health Victoria to interview 19 professionals involved directly in providing medical or surgical abortion, counselling in relation to accessing abortion, or abortion policy or advocacy.

The interviews revealed a failure of legal protections to ensure women’s access was not restricted due to a doctor’s moral or ethical position. All of the experts reported cases of the law being contravened, and some working in rural areas said breaking the law was “common”.

The study, published in the journal BMC Medical Ethics on Thursday, concluded: “These qualitative results are consistent with findings reported from several surveys of US doctors; that a significant minority [15%] of practitioners who claim a conscientious objection do not adhere to obligations to refer, but instead attempt to delay or deny access.

“If even a small proportion of doctors with a conscientious objection refuse to refer, this could have a significant impact on women’s access, particularly if conscientious objectors are over-represented in certain geographic areas, or see more vulnerable patients presenting later in pregnancy.”

The experts interviewed told researchers that some doctors attempted to make women feel guilty for seeking an abortion, attempted to delay women’s access, or claimed an objection for reasons other than conscience to avoid being bound by the law.

One doctor said that it was “not an uncommon experience” when calling the Department of Health and Human Services’ Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme authority line for approval to prescribe abortion medication to a woman between five and seven weeks pregnant to be told: “I’m sorry, I will not,” or “I will not have my hand in this process of you giving that medication to that woman”.

Other doctors reported concerns that entire institutions had opted out of providing abortions because of conscientious objection, even if employing staff who agreed with it.

Keogh and her co-authors called for new guidelines in Victorian to clarify the limits of the law and reduce disingenuous claims of conscientious objection.

Guardian Australia has contacted the Australian Medical Association for comment.

The medical director of Marie Stopes Australia, Dr Philip Goldstone, said many women in Victoria did not know they do not need a you referral from a doctor to access an abortion service up to 24 weeks.

“Women do not need a referral from a doctor to use our telehealth service,” he said. “This was required when we launched our telehealth service but we stopped this requirement because we were getting reports from women, especially in regional areas, having difficulty getting referrals because of conscientious objection.

“However we do know that many women will see a GP when wanting to access an abortion.”

He said Marie Stopes professionals frequently saw the impact of women not being referred on.

“Many women will present to us at a later gestation and this not only increases risk and cost, it can also increase the emotional impact of the procedure,” he said.

“No matter what state, territory or law, our message to GPs who do conscientiously object is to refer women on to other healthcare professionals who can help. It is really important for the patient’s safety and welfare.”