ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: excal on October 11, 2008, 12:00:20 am
-
Sure, it is definitely a victory for those who advocate pro-choice in terms of abortions. But, while women have gained the right to choose whether they should abort their child, doctors have lost their right to conscientiously object to performing (or taking part in) the abortion process.
Sounds like a bloody contradiction if you ask me.
(this thread is about the right of the doctor to object being lost, not the morality of abortion itself)
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24450021-5000117,00.html
THERE is deep irony to the debate on the Abortion Law Reform Bill.
This week members of Parliament have a conscience vote to decide if they will pass a Bill that seriously interferes with the rights of conscience of doctors, nurses and other health practitioners.
The Bill achieves a rare and undesirable double - it tramples on both state and international law.
This has occurred through the so-called "conscientious objection" provisions of the Bill.
In fact, these provisions are not about preserving conscience, but suppressing it.
First, they force doctors and health workers to participate in abortions in ill-defined "emergency" situations.
Second, they require doctors who object to abortion to refer women to a practitioner who will perform one.
In this way, health practitioners are forced to become accomplices to abortion.
The immediate problem for the abortion lobby is Victoria's own Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
This brand spanking new piece of human rights legislation is supposed to protect human rights.
But the proponents of the Bill say that it can be ignored because of a savings clause that says that it has no affect on laws applicable to abortion.
The starting point is to understand what abortion lobbyists are at pains to deny.
These conscientious objection provisions are not principally about abortion at all.
They are about forcing those who oppose abortion to do as they are directed.
As soon as this is appreciated, the rights of the Charter line up to do battle with this repressive legislation.
First is the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
How can a person's conscience be free if they are required by law to commit acts absolutely opposed to their personal ethical and religious beliefs?
Then there is freedom of opinion.
Of what value is such a freedom if one is free to believe that abortion is the taking of human life, but not free to refuse to participate in that act?
Next is the very pointed right to equality before the law.
Given that these draconian, compulsive provisions overwhelmingly will impact on the beliefs of those who oppose abortion, how much more obvious could it be that the effect of the Bill is to single those Victorians out for special discrimination?
Finally, who could believe in a right to privacy if a health practitioner can be required by law to publicly declare their deepest personal beliefs so that other punitive measures can operate against them?
Inconsistency between the Abortion Bill and the Charter will not be enough to make these repulsive provisions illegal.
But it will allow a judge to declare these impositions fundamentally inconsistent with Victoria's human rights regime, adopted less than two years ago.
Then there is the weighty matter of international law.
Australia is a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In fact, most of the Victorian Charter rights are based on the rights of the Covenant, which means that a breach of the Charter normally will involve a breach of the Covenant as well.
The embarrassing consequence is that Victorian health practitioners can -and very likely will - do everything they can to bring these grievous breaches of human rights before the relevant UN authorities.
This is not just a problem for John Brumby and the Victorian Parliament.
It is Australia as a whole that is bound by international law, and Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister who is obligated to see it observed.
Two things emerge clearly from this sorry saga of ideology over rights, conscience law and common sense.
First, the Victorian Government needs to consider the effect the abortion legislation has on the credibility of its Charter and its reputation for protecting human rights.
Second, Australia's treaty obligations and federal human rights legislation ultimately are Kevin Rudd's responsibility.
If he wants to avoid fallout from this, he should exert some soothing influence.
EDIT: Fixed grammar in topic title.
-
That article is just complete and utter bullshit. The author has pulled that OUT OF HIS ARSE. This is all hysteria.
No, they haven't lost their rights to "freedom of thought and religion", actually. The doctors can still decide what's right for them, and if they have a conscious objection to abortion, they can refuse to perform it and refer a woman on to another doctor. They are never "forced" to participate in one. Besides, nurses and gynecologists CHOOSE whether they wish to work in the area of abortion services anyway, and abortions require extensive training!
First, they force doctors and health workers to participate in abortions in ill-defined "emergency" situations.
Bullshit. As I said above, NO ONE IS FORCED TO PERFORM AN ABORTION! You have to WORK in the area to carry one out or assist.
And women don't waltz into emergency departments and say, "I want an abortion, gimme one". That requires referral to an abortion clinic. FUCKING OATH. The only circumstances where health professionals may be definitely REQUIRED to do one is when a women is having a miscarriage and she is bleeding to death, or if the mother is very, very sick. THEY ARE PERFORMED TO SAVE A WOMEN'S LIFE! AND I WOULDN'T CALL THAT FREAKIN "ILL DEFINED". HOW IS "mother is going to die, baby is definitely going to die" ILL-DEFINED? Give me a break.
The only issue here would be whether GPs/ other doctors should refer women on to gynecologists who practice abortion, despite being objected to it. But, it would be a breach of patient rights if they were not referred on, anyway. Patients have the right to advice and services, which are independent of prejudice, bias or religion. The doctor can say, "I don't wish to speak about this as I am morally objected to abortion. I will refer you on to another practitioner." However, this has always been the case.
Everything will be business as usual. The only thing this bill changes is that women can have an abortion, and doctors can perform abortions, without fear of prosecution.
Also, just to clear this up, Catholic hospitals will not be "forced" to provide abortion services. There is absolutely no obligation for them to do so. Priests and pro-life anti-choice lobbyists have pulled this out of their arses.
-
wow.
*claps*
I actually didn't know most of that jessie0, thank you :)
I was slightly learning toward the "doctors should have the right not to refer" but now you've completely swayed me :)
-
That article is just complete and utter bullshit. The author has pulled that OUT OF HIS ARSE. This is all hysteria.
No, they haven't lost their rights to "freedom of thought and religion", actually. The doctors can still decide what's right for them, and if they have a conscious objection to abortion, they can refuse to perform it and refer a woman on to another doctor. They are never "forced" to participate in one. Besides, nurses and gynecologists CHOOSE whether they wish to work in the area of abortion services anyway, and abortions require extensive training!
First, they force doctors and health workers to participate in abortions in ill-defined "emergency" situations.
Bullshit. As I said above, NO ONE IS FORCED TO PERFORM AN ABORTION! You have to WORK in the area to carry one out or assist.
And women don't waltz into emergency departments and say, "I want an abortion, gimme one". That requires referral to an abortion clinic. FUCKING OATH. The only circumstances where health professionals may be definitely REQUIRED to do one is when a women is having a miscarriage and she is bleeding to death, or if the mother is very, very sick. THEY ARE PERFORMED TO SAVE A WOMEN'S LIFE! AND I WOULDN'T CALL THAT FREAKIN "ILL DEFINED". HOW IS "mother is going to die, baby is definitely going to die" ILL-DEFINED? Give me a break.
The only issue here would be whether GPs/ other doctors should refer women on to gynecologists who practice abortion, despite being objected to it. But, it would be a breach of patient rights if they were not referred on, anyway. Patients have the right to advice and services, which are independent of prejudice, bias or religion. The doctor can say, "I don't wish to speak about this as I am morally objected to abortion. I will refer you on to another practitioner." However, this has always been the case.
Everything will be business as usual. The only thing this bill changes is that women can have an abortion, and doctors can perform abortions, without fear of prosecution.
Also, just to clear this up, Catholic hospitals will not be "forced" to provide abortion services. There is absolutely no obligation for them to do so. Priests and pro-life anti-choice lobbyists have pulled this out of their arses.
Not quite.
Those in the Catholic faith believe that by even referring a patient to another doctor who is willing to do the actual abortion, they've become an accomplice to the act (and are just as sinful).
And I believe that doctors should choose whether they wish to perform whatever procedure they think is in the patient's best interest (and, implicitly, will be acceptable to the doctor themself). They ought not to be legally obliged, but be morally obliged due to their profession and stature in society.
I'm sure a person wanting an abortion going to a Catholic doctor, only to be told that they won't do it / won't refer can simply go somewhere else. There is no need to label it a crime to conscientiously object.
Mind you, taking it a step farther and claiming that it also applies in 'emergency' situations is a bit too far. I'm sure the doctor would know the personal (lawsuit, anyone?) ramifications for not providing best care - abortion included.
(I might add here that there are situations where Catholic doctors would terminate the pregnancy to save a mother's life, where the act indirectly causes the fetus to die such as removal of the uterus to remove a cancer within it during pregnancy).
But, to reiterate, my personal disagreement is in the loss of the right to conscientiously object to performing / referring abortions in the non-emergency setting. Like I said before, I'm sure that a patient can find another doctor if a doctor refuses to perform the procedure or refer her onto another. No need to label doctors as being against the law for not doing so...because really, that's as bad as forcing someone to go to war without any means for objecting for whatever reason (another example of where conscientious objection occurred, yet was historically permitted).
-
fuck catholics
/end rant
-
fuck catholics
/end rant
Heh, well, I'm supposed to be Catholic - but I'm pretty much pro-choice (up to 20 weeks).
I'm gonna get excommunicated one of these days. I'll just add that onto my (growing) list of excommunicatible sins :P
But I'm still against the removal / non-inclusion of conscientious objection provisions in the amendment. Just as pregnant women are free to choose, so should doctors.
-
Not quite.
Those in the Catholic faith believe that by even referring a patient to another doctor who is willing to do the actual abortion, they've become an accomplice to the act (and are just as sinful).
And I believe that doctors should choose whether they wish to perform whatever procedure they think is in the patient's best interest (and, implicitly, will be acceptable to the doctor themself). They ought not to be legally obliged, but be morally obliged due to their profession and stature in society.
I'm sure a person wanting an abortion going to a Catholic doctor, only to be told that they won't do it / won't refer can simply go somewhere else. There is no need to label it a crime to conscientiously object.
Mind you, taking it a step farther and claiming that it also applies in 'emergency' situations is a bit too far. I'm sure the doctor would know the personal (lawsuit, anyone?) ramifications for not providing best care - abortion included.
(I might add here that there are situations where Catholic doctors would terminate the pregnancy to save a mother's life, where the act indirectly causes the fetus to die such as removal of the uterus to remove a cancer within it during pregnancy).
But, to reiterate, my personal disagreement is in the loss of the right to conscientiously object to performing / referring abortions in the non-emergency setting. Like I said before, I'm sure that a patient can find another doctor if a doctor refuses to perform the procedure or refer her onto another. No need to label doctors as being against the law for not doing so...because really, that's as bad as forcing someone to go to war without any means for objecting for whatever reason (another example of where conscientious objection occurred, yet was historically permitted).
Not quite? I was just stressing that no doctor will be FORCED to perform an abortion under the new legislation... in fact, it will be business as usual, the only difference being that abortion is no longer against the law. The propaganda floating around about doctors being "forced" to perform abortions is utter crap. You choose whether you are going to perform abortions, and you have to be a freakin OBGYN!
Actually, hold on... I just realised, the stupidest thing about this is, that referrals are no longer required for abortion clinics. So I don't get what everyone is crapping on about. Now, most doctors wouldn't even NEED to refer a patient to a practitioner who performs abortions, so thus there's no need for them to act in a manner which is against their faith. Most women can and do independently have an abortion (if it is before 24 weeks). The new bill just makes it not a criminal offense to do so.
What I was suggesting was that if a woman required advice about abortion which the GP did not wish to give due to religion (although conveyed poorly in the previous post), then the doctor can object on the basis of possessing a bias, and refer her onto another doctor/ psychologist/ health professional who will distribute guidance free of prejudice.
If that makes sense.
But, to reiterate, my personal disagreement is in the loss of the right to conscientiously object to performing / referring abortions
FOR THE nth TIME, doctors do not have to PERFORM abortions if they don't want to. In fact, you have to be a gynecologist who chooses to work within that scope of practice to do one in the first place!
-
I never said they were being forced to perform abortions. I just said they were forced to refer if asked for one. Sure, the patient can now go to an abortion clinic without a referral - but there is no need for a law that forces doctors to point the way if they don't want to due to moral or religious objections.
The patient can find out for herself. I'm sure it's in the interests of the abortion clinic to advertise their services (and the fact they can just walk in).
-
I never said they were being forced to perform abortions.
doctors have lost their right to conscientiously object to performing (or taking part in) the abortion process.
But, to reiterate, my personal disagreement is in the loss of the right to conscientiously object to performing / referring abortions
Hmm...
-
Ok, perhaps I did not express it clearly enough.
I mean that doctors now must do one or the other. They have lost their right to do neither (which is what they must do from a religious stand-point in the case of Catholic doctors).
-
Just like in any job, if your moral/religious beliefs are so strong that they refrain you from performing your job, then get lost and find another.
If I don't agree with the ethical considerations resulting from my job, then I quit and find another field that suits my beliefs.
-
wow i did this issue for my religion and society unit 3/4 SAC lols and my whole school was putting the whole Catholic point of view and ranting about it, we even had a spokesperson(politician) come to our school but i reckon if was more advertising his position so that we would elect him in the future ahahah :uglystupid2: , thats the only bad thing i hate about catholic or religion based schools they sometimes put religion infront of academics and they drag these issues and problems into our lives which are not needed in such a busy time of vce exams >:(
-
Just like in any job, if your moral/religious beliefs are so strong that they refrain you from performing your job, then get lost and find another.
If I don't agree with the ethical considerations resulting from my job, then I quit and find another field that suits my beliefs.
It shouldn't be criminalised. Natural forces should take care of that.
-
Just like in any job, if your moral/religious beliefs are so strong that they refrain you from performing your job, then get lost and find another.
If I don't agree with the ethical considerations resulting from my job, then I quit and find another field that suits my beliefs.
You have expressed exactly what I was about to write :D :P
It is a fundamental right of a patient to receive advice without bias and be referred to services which will assist them in their medical care. If you, as a doctor, are unable to do this, and put your religious views in the way of getting your own patient medical assistance, you shouldn't be practicing as a doctor. You can, at the very least, refer her on to a doctor who will give her some guidance on the issue and direct her to services. They don't need to refer them on to people who will necessarily carry out the procedure.
Some women are also unable to seek out these services by themselves, due to a variety of reasons. Some women are left not knowing what to do and where to go.
-
I never said they were being forced to perform abortions. I just said they were forced to refer if asked for one. Sure, the patient can now go to an abortion clinic without a referral - but there is no need for a law that forces doctors to point the way if they don't want to due to moral or religious objections.
The patient can find out for herself. I'm sure it's in the interests of the abortion clinic to advertise their services (and the fact they can just walk in).
I think what jessie0 is saying is that if you have chosen to work in this area, then you should have been prepared to perform abortions. So if you're morally against abortions, then why would you choose to work in that area??
It's like a lawyer who is morally opposed to defending criminals but chooses to go into criminal law. It makes no sense.
-
I never said they were being forced to perform abortions. I just said they were forced to refer if asked for one. Sure, the patient can now go to an abortion clinic without a referral - but there is no need for a law that forces doctors to point the way if they don't want to due to moral or religious objections.
The patient can find out for herself. I'm sure it's in the interests of the abortion clinic to advertise their services (and the fact they can just walk in).
I think what jessie0 is saying is that if you have chosen to work in this area, then you should have been prepared to perform abortions. So if you're morally against abortions, then why would you choose to work in that area??
It's like a lawyer who is morally opposed to defending criminals but chooses to go into criminal law. It makes no sense.
Of course. These are the 'natural' forces I refer to.
You don't need to outlaw going into criminal law for those who are morally opposed to defending criminals.
Just like in any job, if your moral/religious beliefs are so strong that they refrain you from performing your job, then get lost and find another.
If I don't agree with the ethical considerations resulting from my job, then I quit and find another field that suits my beliefs.
You have expressed exactly what I was about to write :D :P
It is a fundamental right of a patient to receive advice without bias and be referred to services which will assist them in their medical care. If you, as a doctor, are unable to do this, and put your religious views in the way of getting your own patient medical assistance, you shouldn't be practicing as a doctor. You can, at the very least, refer her on to a doctor who will give her some guidance on the issue and direct her to services. They don't need to refer them on to people who will necessarily carry out the procedure.
There is no such thing as unbiased advice, particularly in contentious topics such as this. This is the government forcing ideals onto existing doctors.
Some women are also unable to seek out these services by themselves, due to a variety of reasons. Some women are left not knowing what to do and where to go.
Of course. But if you're going to a doctor knowing that you want an abortion, and get turned away, it would be a natural instinct to go to another doctor in the hopes s/he won't turn you away.
-
Just like in any job, if your moral/religious beliefs are so strong that they refrain you from performing your job, then get lost and find another.
Agreed.
It reminds me of a sad episode of Law and Order (I know, I know. Lame american tv :P) but it had a doctor who lied to a patient about her condition (claimed she had a fever) and refused to give her an abortion (purposely) until it was too late. In the end, the girl ended up taking drastic measures to rid herself of the baby.
Although this does come from a fictional crime show, generally most themes from L&O are inspired by real life stories. It's horrible to think that there are some of those horrible people out there.
-
There is no such thing as unbiased advice, particularly in contentious topics such as this
I mean "without bias" on an individual case basis.
Instead of going "ZOMG ABORTIONS ARE BAD, *MURDER MURDER MURDER*" or "YES ABORTIONS ARE TOTALLY FINE", you sit down and consider the individual's circumstances, their reasons for having an abortion and what services are best for them to take advantage of.
If you are unable to do this due to moral/religious objections, you should refer on to someone else who will give advice to your patient and who will help them find services to assist them (such as counseling, abortion clinics, social workers etc). If you don't even want to advise your patient to seek another opinion, or refer them on to someone else, then don't practice as a doctor. It's just not fair to you completely withhold treatment/ advice because of your religious views.
For example, a GP at my dad's work is morally opposed to abortion. So whenever he sees a patient who requires help and advice on this, he gets them to see the practice nurse, who is more than happy to advise them and link them in with organisations and services.
Also, it's not too easy to just suddenly find another doctor, especially if he/she is your GP.
Of course. These are the 'natural' forces I refer to.
If a doctor refuses to refer their patients to appropriate services, the following could happen:
1. Patient or colleague makes a complaint to health services commission or the Australian Medical Practitioner Board
2. The Australian Medical Practitioner Board or Health Services Commission rings up doctor to discuss the complaints. This is considered a warning.
3. If a doctor repeats his actions, and there is sufficient evidence to support it, doctor is suspended
4. If a doctor continues to repeat his actions, and there is sufficient evidence to support it, doctor is de-registered.
Every company/ profession is allowed to have expected standards of practice, and medicine does. In Australia, the AMA and health department have specific expectations of doctors they have employed/ registered.
I don't see how the process listed above would be much different to what would occur in other companies and professions. If you are working for a company or other organisations, if you are an inefficient worker or do something out of protocol, you are warned and maybe fired. As a doctor, if you refuse to provide your patient with assistance, you are disciplined. However, in medicine, you are responsible for people's emotional and physical well being.
That said, I am a patient advocate. Not a doctor advocate.
-
I never said they were being forced to perform abortions. I just said they were forced to refer if asked for one. Sure, the patient can now go to an abortion clinic without a referral - but there is no need for a law that forces doctors to point the way if they don't want to due to moral or religious objections.
The patient can find out for herself. I'm sure it's in the interests of the abortion clinic to advertise their services (and the fact they can just walk in).
I think what jessie0 is saying is that if you have chosen to work in this area, then you should have been prepared to perform abortions. So if you're morally against abortions, then why would you choose to work in that area??
It's like a lawyer who is morally opposed to defending criminals but chooses to go into criminal law. It makes no sense.
Of course. These are the 'natural' forces I refer to.
You don't need to outlaw going into criminal law for those who are morally opposed to defending criminals.
No. But what if the criminal lawyer refused to refer the criminal to a lawyer who WAS willing to take up the position? The criminal is left without justice.
Just like the woman is left without help. You really cannot judge what the "natural instinct" of a woman who wants to abort a baby is. Those women are often distressed and emotionally unstable, and quite possibly incapable of taking the course of action which a "reasonable person" would have taken in the circumstances.
(I'm aware that for serious crimes the judge picks the lawyer etc etc but just play along for the sake of the analogy ...)
-
What I was suggesting was that if a woman required advice about abortion which the GP did not wish to give due to religion (although conveyed poorly in the previous post), then the doctor can object on the basis of possessing a bias, and refer her onto another doctor/ psychologist/ health professional who will distribute guidance free of prejudice.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/alrb2008219/
Pt 2 section 8:
(1) If a woman requests a registered health
practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
for that woman, and the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion, the
practitioner must--
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health
practitioner in the same regulated health
profession who the practitioner knows does
not have a conscientious objection to
abortion.
There is a big difference between a suggestion that doctors "can" do X, and a law prescribing that doctors "must" do X.
-
Criminal lawyers aren't bound by law to serve potential clients. Neither should abortionists. What if an abortionist changes their religion in an epiphany before they can quit their job?
Governments should get out of the way of services that work perfectly fine (and better) without them, and let the market deal with it. If someone doesn't want to do an abortion, all the better for the other abortionists out there. Someone else will fill in their role.
You don't have a "right" to force open someone's mouth for a referral. That is against the principle of freedom of speech.
-
You don't have a "right" to force open someone's mouth for a referral. That is against the principle of freedom of speech.
QFT
-
Not only is it extremely impractical and draconian, but such ungrateful expectations of the doctor's duty will only serve to discourage the amount of people who wish to become doctors. If you're in VCE, you're probably thinking - that's no problem, so many people want to do Medicine, but it will inevitably lower the quality of the applicants, as they have to fill in their final spots by replacing the discouraged students with lower ranked students.
Ultimately, people will be paying the same price for a lower quality, or a higher price for the same quality.
-
What? Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry. If your uncomfortable with issues such as abortion, don't work in an area where you have to deal with them.
Often, people who are seeking an abortion will not be completely certain about it, or may have many conflicting emotions. If a woman goes to her GP asking for an abortion, and the GP says 'I object, go away', she may end up feeling guilty and be reluctant about seeking further help. To talk about free markets here is absurd, it is difficult to be 100% rational in this situation, and the best outcome is not necessarily clear or guaranteed.
Furthermore, you can't measure how good a doctor will be by ENTER score. Maybe someone who is more empathetic towards the needs of a patient to be kindly listened to and reasonably advised but who has a slightly lower ENTER is better equipped for medicine than someone with a higher score who decides not to do medicine because they can't handle the complexity of the issue that is abortion. Or perhaps the latter person would just be suited to a different career in medicine to 'abortionist'.
-
What? Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry. If your uncomfortable with issues such as abortion, don't work in an area where you have to deal with them.
Nice to know that you agree with us!
And of course, industries can self-regulate. It's not the government's job to coerce someone to speak through legislation, though (as they have with this particular piece of legislation).
That is my only gripe with this Amendment.
-
Yeah Collin, I disagree with your premise. The highest ENTER doesn't make the best doctor. The reason why Australian doctors are so darned good, is that the training is so brilliant. Our medical training courses are renowned the world over. Once you get up to the top end (ENTER 95+) it really doesn't matter who you pick, so long as they can be trained up in the current system.
This system, I might add, is heavily regulated by both the industry and the government. :)
-
What? Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry. If your uncomfortable with issues such as abortion, don't work in an area where you have to deal with them.
Nice to know that you agree with us!
And of course, industries can self-regulate. It's not the government's job to coerce someone to speak through legislation, though (as they have with this particular piece of legislation).
That is my only gripe with this Amendment.
I agree with this. I'm not too concerned with the idea that potential doctors will be discouraged (that's fine if it's efficient allocation of resources at play). I'm more concerned that it's happening not as a result of efficient allocation of resources, but because the government is imposing its morals on the industry.
The difference between the former and the latter is that one is about individuals choosing the services they want, and the other is some so-called wiser-than-thou choosing the services he thinks you ought to want.
-
To talk about free markets here is absurd, it is difficult to be 100% rational in this situation, and the best outcome is not necessarily clear or guaranteed.
How does this relate to free markets?
This is about individual freedom - doctors should not be bound by law to give advice if they do not wish to, for any reason they wish. Doctors, who are being paid by their clinics, should instead be held accountable by their clinic, if they wish to. What's with the government coming into play and injecting their values all over the place?
-
To talk about free markets here is absurd, it is difficult to be 100% rational in this situation, and the best outcome is not necessarily clear or guaranteed.
How does this relate to free markets?
This is about individual freedom - doctors should not be bound by law to give advice if they do not wish to, for any reason they wish. Doctors, who are being paid by their clinics, should instead be held accountable by their clinic, if they wish to. What's with the government coming into play and injecting their values all over the place?
No one is saying that they should be bound by law to give advice.
What is of question here is whether doctors should be bound to refer patients seeking advice about abortions or requesting abortions to a place where they will be heard.
Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.
-
Referral is advice.
Otherwise, the person could just pack their bags and go and find an abortion clinic themselves (rather than be advised where to go).
-
It's not the same advice that we are using in this context.
-
Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.
(1) If a woman requests a registered health
practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
for that woman, and the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion, the
practitioner must--
...
(b) refer the woman to another registered health
practitioner in the same regulated health
profession who the practitioner knows does
not have a conscientious objection to
abortion.
Yes, it is.
-
How isn't it? That's the advice I'm talking about. I'm opposed to the idea that a doctor must be forced to open their mouths.
Also, I never said the ENTER system was the best way. Whichever way universities think is appropriate to select by, they will still lose discouraged candidates, and universities will have to pick those they prefer less. The problem is that they are not losing these discouraged candidates for good reason - it is because the government is installing an ideal on behalf of people who never asked for it (and if they did, they could just perfectly do it themselves).
-
Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.
(1) If a woman requests a registered health
practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
for that woman, and the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion, the
practitioner must--
...
(b) refer the woman to another registered health
practitioner in the same regulated health
profession who the practitioner knows does
not have a conscientious objection to
abortion.
Yes, it is.
Your quoting proved nothing.
If you asked me what shares to buy and I gave you the number of my financial advisor who gave you shares, you cannot turn around and tell your friend that I gave you advice on the purchase of your shares.
-
Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.
I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.
-
Obviously I get what you are saying but we should not under the impression that " doctors [will] be bound by law to give advice [even]if they do not wish to [to patients seeking abortions]," because that simply is not the case.
(1) If a woman requests a registered health
practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
for that woman, and the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion, the
practitioner must--
...
(b) refer the woman to another registered health
practitioner in the same regulated health
profession who the practitioner knows does
not have a conscientious objection to
abortion.
Yes, it is.
Your quoting proved nothing.
If you asked me what shares to buy and I gave you the number of my financial advisor who gave you shares, you cannot turn around and tell your friend that I gave you advice on the purchase of your shares.
What? I don't get what you're trying to refute.
I'm merely quashing the fact that it's not merely an impression that doctors must give advice as you suggest, it is now the law. Which means that the case that doctors will be required to give advice/referrals to other doctors without conscientious objection is now a fact, not just an 'impression'.
To be honest, if you support the right for the state to force doctors to say things that they don't wish to say with threat of punishment by the state, you support trampling of the right to free speech (or silence). It's as simple as that.
-
If you read my posts properly you would have realised that my contention is that 'advice' and 'referral' are not the same thing.
-
Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.
I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.
lol
Refer to the act
-
Alright then, give me an example of how they are different in a medical setting.
And, regardless of whether it is 'referral' or 'advice', doctors are now forced to refer patients on to another doctor when they may not want to, under threat of punishment from the state. That is simply wrong.
How would you feel if you were forced to tell people every single detail of your intimate life upon request?
It's pretty much the same thing objectively speaking, but feels much more intrusive to you simply because it affects you (as opposed to someone else).
-
Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.
I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.
lol
Refer to the act
He is saying that doctors ought to have the right NOT to give phone numbers if they do not wish to. This is his (and my) opposition to the bill as it stands.
-
Alright then, give me an example of how they are different in a medical setting.
And, regardless of whether it is 'referral' or 'advice', doctors are now forced to refer patients on to another doctor when they may not want to, under threat of punishment from the state. That is simply wrong.
How would you feel if you were forced to tell people every single detail of your intimate life upon request?
It's pretty much the same thing objectively speaking, but feels much more intrusive to you simply because it affects you (as opposed to someone else).
My point was that the two shouldn't be interchangeable. I don't dispute your claims or view, I just point out that referral and advice in mainstream Australia's mind are two separate things.
-
Okay, well I'm not concerned about what you think "advice" is. There's no big deal.
I'm concerned about referrals too (if you think it's separate). Forcing doctors to lose their freedom of speech over abortions is morally dubious. If someone doesn't wanna give out a number, he doesn't have to.
lol
Refer to the act
He is saying that doctors ought to have the right NOT to give phone numbers if they do not wish to. This is his (and my) opposition to the bill as it stands.
Yeh I know. I'm just doing a bit of literal interpretation and saying that actually they do now according to the law lol. I'm not retarded.
-
Since when did you speak for 'Australia's mind'? :P
Like I said, give me a distinguishing difference between 'advice' and 'referral' by a conscientiously objecting doctor in the case of abortion.
-
Since when did you speak for 'Australia's mind'? :P
Like I said, give me a distinguishing difference between 'advice' and 'referral' by a conscientiously objecting doctor in the case of abortion.
lol what do you want me to say?
Can't you do that youself?
Penny Higgins goes to her doctor to seek advice about an abortion she wants. He refuses to give her advice but tells her that if she wants advice she can see Dr McLapplin, a well known supporter of abortion.
-
I don't quite get the point of the example (seems like a bit of a non sequitor) but lets use this example and change it around a bit.
Penny Higgins goes to her doctor to seek advice about an abortion she wants. The doctor, a devout Catholic is bound by his moral code not to give advice about abortion as he considers it a sin and thus he refuses to give her advice. Penny goes to his lawyers and a few days later he is given a summons to go to court.
With the new legisisation, Doctors now "must" give "advice" (even if it is to say go to someone else), whether they feel it is morally correct or not to perform an abortion. Doctors have the right to refuse to give their services to certain populations already (e.g drug addicts), so why are they being forced to offer this abortion service? That is the criminal thing here.
-
It's the state system we're talking about and hence professionals should be restricted in their ability to act according to their caprices, as they would if running their own businesses. However, as Coblin noted, the state would be liable to lose many of its best [and potentially best] people if it was too picky itself, particularly as it could easily circumvent the problem by designating certain people alone to deal with the abortion referral process, so doctors need not be concerned, unless they themselves were abortionists.
-
If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.
Taking that to its logical conclusion:
"If the medical industry says that you have to rape your mother, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry."
Even then, we are not debating whether "the medical industry" is saying X or Y. It is whether it is justified to have a law forcing doctors against their will to provide a referral.
-
If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.
Taking that to its logical conclusion:
"If the medical industry says that you have to rape your mother, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry."
Even then, we are not debating whether "the medical industry" is saying X or Y. It is whether it is justified to have a law forcing doctors against their will to provide a referral.
That's not a logical conclusion. That is the flawed logical argument of 'reductio ad absurdum'.
You're comparing articles of ENTIRELY DIFFERENT severity.
One is a reasonable request that respects the right of the patient, the other is something that infringes on the rights of the patient (to feel safe in one's environment).
What a shitty analogy.
-
The regulations also SAY that doctors have to treat a critically ill person (e.g. someone who has got a gunshot wound and will die without treatment) IMMEDIATELY and UNCONDITIONALLY. Would you say that that is akin to telling the doctor to rape his mother? I would think not. The former is a reasonable request, as with the referral scenario with which medical practitioners must comply. The latter is a ridiculous scenario employed as nothing more than useless rhetoric that does not further this debate one bit.
-
There's nothing wrong with his analogy. It highlights the failure of that principle.
It might be a reasonable request, but it isn't justified by that principle.
-
There's plenty wrong with his analogy. In the original scenario, the only argument was that the doctor's rights were being violated (something with which I still disagree). In Brendan's scenario, the patient's, the doctor's and potentially one of their mothers will have their rights violated.
...
-
If X says Y, and you work for X, then it's your job to do Y - you made the choice by joining X in the first place.
There were no conditions on Y.
-
That's not a logical conclusion. That is the flawed logical argument of 'reductio ad absurdum'.
You're comparing articles of ENTIRELY DIFFERENT severity.
One is a reasonable request that respects the right of the patient, the other is something that infringes on the rights of the patient (to feel safe in one's environment).
What a shitty analogy.
It's a fine analogy that illustrates what happens when you take a principle to its logical end.
It's got nothing to do with the reasonableness of the request. The request might very well be reasonable.
However the argument put forward was "If the medical industry says that you have to do X, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry."
-
If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.
Taking that to its logical conclusion:
"If the medical industry says that you have to rape your mother, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry."
Even then, we are not debating whether "the medical industry" is saying X or Y. It is whether it is justified to have a law forcing doctors against their will to provide a referral.
Well, to use that logic:
If a doctor is personally and/or morally against gay relationships, he/she should have the right to express that opinion by deliberately not treating them for HIV and letting them die a slow death from AIDS.
....... :-\
-
But there ARE conditions on Y. And it is these conditions that Brendan fails to see. By making it a black and white 'X' and 'Y' you remove all mitigating W's, Z's, the odd M or L and sometimes an N that influence the 'Y'! These W, Z, M, L and N's are the universal declaration of human rights, the people that make up the regulatory bodies etc. By disregarding that process, you TRIVIALISE the decision and take away the multi-dimensionality of the argument.
What it boils down to is that doctors already have medical imperatives. They HAVE to do certain things as required by the legislation. This extra rule does NOT violate their rights. If you go to your GP and you have skin problems that they do not know how to treat. They have a legal obligation to refer you to a qualified dermatologist. Here, they are exercising their right to not perform certain procedures but they MUST refer you to somebody who will entertain the possibility. It is a reasonable request that is already covered in legislation.
-
Yes, no one has any right to force others to serve them. Doing so is nothing short of slavery.
-
By making it a black and white 'X' and 'Y' you remove all mitigating W's, Z's, the odd M or L and sometimes an N that influence the 'Y'! These W, Z, M, L and N's are the universal declaration of human rights, the people that make up the regulatory bodies etc. By disregarding that process, you TRIVIALISE the decision and take away the multi-dimensionality of the argument
Learn that in debating 101?
-
Ah, I love these black and white "IF YOU DO THIS THIS WILL HAPPEN" arguments. With such brilliant focus on the black shade and the white shade, you'd almost swear there was never such a thing as a "grey area" in life at all...
-
By making it a black and white 'X' and 'Y' you remove all mitigating W's, Z's, the odd M or L and sometimes an N that influence the 'Y'! These W, Z, M, L and N's are the universal declaration of human rights, the people that make up the regulatory bodies etc. By disregarding that process, you TRIVIALISE the decision and take away the multi-dimensionality of the argument
Learn that in debating 101?
No, that comes from common sense. I learnt how to recognise a bullshit argument in debating 101. Kind of like what you've been offering up in this thread. :)
-
What it boils down to is that doctors already have medical imperatives. They HAVE to do certain things as required by the legislation. This extra rule does NOT violate their rights. If you go to your GP and you have skin problems that they do not know how to treat. They have a legal obligation to refer you to a qualified dermatologist. Here, they are exercising their right to not perform certain procedures but they MUST refer you to somebody who will entertain the possibility. It is a reasonable request that is already covered in legislation.
is anyone honestly morally/religiously opposed to skin problems?
-
No, that comes from common sense.
It's more like nonsense.
-
I am talking about Eriny's statement. That is not a valid principle to justify the argument.
Just because the principle is incorrect, it doesn't mean her entire argument is wrong under all circumstances. For example, you may design a more complicated principle (like the one you are suggesting with M, L, W, etc.) which may justify such an argument.
-
I am talking about Eriny's statement. That is not a valid principle to justify the argument.
Just because the principle is incorrect, it doesn't mean her entire argument is wrong under all circumstances. For example, you may design a more complicated principle (like the one you are suggesting with M, L, W, etc.) which may justify such an argument.
Collin, that's exactly what I've been saying. That it's not as black and white as Brendan makes it out to be. That the reason we have that referral clause in the legislature is a complex M, L and W type of principle that protects the right of the patient whilst absolving the doctor of performing the operation himself.
No, that comes from common sense.
It's more like nonsense.
As for you, sir, you still have not provided any semblance of a cogent rebuttal to my M, L and W analogy other than "LOL LERN DAT IN DEBATIN' 101?!!11" - so until such a time as you tell me why X -> Y is a valid argument in such a delicate process, you can have a nice re-read of coblin's post and see that, in fact, my argument has tremendous validity as compared to your black-and-white-sweep-every-other-mitigating-factor-under-the-rug piece of utter bilge.
-
Collin, that's exactly what I've been saying.
And I've been pointing out the same thing.
-
No, you haven't. All you've been offering up is "X -> Y. LOLOLOLOLOL UR WRONG"
-
Brendan never made it out to be "black and white." Brendan merely showed that the principle is flawed.
Understand this, Brendan isn't using that as a complete refutation of the entire argument, he is attacking that link of the argument - rendering it invalid by the principle stated by Eriny.
Here is a rebuttal to your analogy:
But there ARE conditions on Y. And it is these conditions that Brendan fails to see. By making it a black and white 'X' and 'Y' you remove all mitigating W's, Z's, the odd M or L and sometimes an N that influence the 'Y'! These W, Z, M, L and N's are the universal declaration of human rights, the people that make up the regulatory bodies etc. By disregarding that process, you TRIVIALISE the decision and take away the multi-dimensionality of the argument.
Firstly, 'X' and 'Y' are totally different things. 'X' was an agency, and 'Y' was an action. Even if Y is a function of all those other variables, the principle still blatantly said: if X says: do Y (whatever the result is, as a result of computing all of the other factors), do it.
You can defend your own principle, enwiabe, without trying to defend Eriny's, because hers is probably indefensible. Personally, I wouldn't have pointed it out because it becomes a mainly semantic argument, with little enlightenment and progress, but it is still important to attack it, based on principle, I guess.
-
Right, but brendan said Y could take on any value. I'm arguing that because Y is restricted by M, L and W etc. that Y can never be 'rape' or anything like that. And then there was a complete case of: Look, up in the sky! Is it a bird? IS IT A PLANE?! NO, IT'S MY POINT FLYING RIGHT OVER HIS HEAD!
He missed the idea that 'Y' could be inherently restricted by other variables upon which it depends and went straight on to say that Y could take on anything therefore the principle of X says Y therefore do Y was flawed. I say that Y is restricted to those M, L and W variables and therefore it can't be things like rape or things that violate the rights of doctors and patients etc.
His refusal to accept this makes him exceedingly black and white.
-
You would do well if you stopped trying to defend Eriny's principle. On its own, it is indefensible.
Rather, I would attempt to justify it by another principle.
-
It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.
-
Well, no, I am defending Eriny simply because Brendan has been exaggerating what she said. She never said that the doctors should do EVERYTHING the medical industry says or does. She said that they should do whatever the medical industry says based on X -> Y(M, L, W, N) like what I've been saying. Like referring patients.
In a purely (uselessly) rhetorical style, as far as I can make out, Brendan has been taking what Eriny has said out of context and placing it in his black and white mould that works about as well as a square wheel.
That is my beef with it.
-
It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.
Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time :P
And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.
-
Right, but brendan said Y could take on any value. I'm arguing that because Y is restricted by M, L and W etc. that Y can never be 'rape' or anything like that.
Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.
I was quite clearly demonstrating the consequences of the line of argument that suggests that:
A medical professional should do X because the medical industry says that you have to do X.
-
It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.
Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time :P
And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.
thank you for highlighting exactly what I mean.
those who exercise parts of their brain other than pure rationality would understand
-
Right, but brendan said Y could take on any value. I'm arguing that because Y is restricted by M, L and W etc. that Y can never be 'rape' or anything like that.
Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.
I was quite clearly demonstrating the consequences of the line of argument that suggests that:
A medical professional should do X because the medical industry says that you have to do X.
a consequence that will never be allowed to happen, if I may foolish add.
there is a difference between consequences in a logical sense and in a dynamic society.
if not, we would all be bitter cynics
-
Right, but you REFUSED to take into account the mitigating factors. The argument wasn't a simple DO WHATEVER THEY SAY. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have realised that IMPLICT IN THAT STATEMENT, was consideration for the rules governing those bodies. THESE RULES YIELD THE VARIABLES W, Z, M, L ETC. THAT MAKE SURE THAT 'Y' NEVER TAKES ON THE VALUE OF 'RAPE' as you so tastefully put it.
Your inability to comprehend this simple logic shouldn't result in your bashing Eriny for making a sound argument that these bodies are in place to ensure that malpractice does not occur.
-
It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.
Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time :P
And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.
Exactly, and I am brave for taking up views that are traditionally lambasted for supposedly hurting the socio-economic class that I am in (the lower class).
Mao, why don't you actually contribute to an argument, rather than making personal attacks, such as suggesting that we are inflexible? You are the one who is stuck in your irrational exuberance.
-
Brendan, as I've just said now. It was implicit.
Oh, so we went from "she said..." to "she implied...".
Just where is it implied "that they should do whatever the medical industry says based on X -> Y(M, L, W, N)"?
-
It is good to see that some still have the courage to argue a point against those who will never change.
I would +karma you, enwiabe, but you don't allow me to.
Why do you think they will never change?
Coblins views about some things have changed greatly over time :P
And what point? I don't see anything wrong with coblin/brendan's argument at all.
thank you for highlighting exactly what I mean.
those who exercise parts of their brain other than pure rationality would understand
My brain works on pure rationality.
Please explain to me in plain simple words so someone as stupid as me can understand it. Unless, you don't either :P
-
Brendan, as I've just said now. It was implicit.
-
The problem is that you two are arguing for a modified principle. Eriny merely stated the raw principle, with no conditions or restrictions. If you want to use the modified principle as the basis of your argument, go ahead, otherwise the principle is flawed.
If you wish to attach values and conditions on the principle, speak for yourself. I doubt you can read her mind. In fact, her principle tried to depart from any external type of regulation (such conditions you propose). She was highlighting the medical industry's ability to self-regulate (i.e.: set their own conditions).
What? Industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves. If the medical industry says that you have to refer a patient, then it's your job to do it and you make the choice to do it by being part of the industry.
-
I can use inductive reasoning to infer what she meant. For example, I know that Eriny is mindful of the rights of others and has a morally sound world view. Given this, it's not difficult to infer that what she MEANT was that doctors should do what the regulatory bodies say to do WITHIN REASON. And by WITHIN REASON I mean as governed by the rules that determine the legislature and how these bodies act. I don't think you can disagree with said induction and inference, but if you'd like to, that's fine. I'm done arguing this topic as I've made my point and you two more or less seem to accept it. Good day, sirs.
-
Well, her principle did follow after she said "industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves."
So, she didn't mean within regulatory bodies, nope.
-
I can use inductive reasoning to infer what she meant. For example, I know that Eriny is mindful of the rights of others and has a morally sound world view. Given this, it's not difficult to infer that what she MEANT was that doctors should do what the regulatory bodies say to do WITHIN REASON.
Oh so we went from "she said that..." to "she implied...." to now "I infer that she meant..."
It's becoming more and more apparent that she didn't say that, nor is it logically implied, and that is more about you and your argument than what she actually said.
-
choo choo, all aboard the brendan train! next stop, morale and debate victory!
-
Well, her principle did follow after she said "industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves."
So, she didn't mean within regulatory bodies, nope.
Sigh, I'm only pointing out a misconception here, after this I'm done:
Just because the industry self-regulates doesn't mean there is NO REGULATION. I'm saying that she assumes the regulation to be in line with M, L, W etc. to be in line with patient/doctor rights etc. I'm saying that regulation happens with said variables to influence Y and yadda yadda yadda you've heard the continuation of this a billion times. Fin.
-
For some reason I knew that
I'm done arguing this topic as I've made my point and you two more or less seem to accept it. Good day, sirs.
would go out the window.
-
Sigh, I'm only pointing out a misconception here, after this I'm done:
Just because the industry self-regulates doesn't mean there is NO REGULATION. I'm saying that she assumes the regulation to be in line with M, L, W etc. to be in line with patient/doctor rights etc. I'm saying that regulation happens with said variables to influence Y and yadda yadda yadda you've heard the continuation of this a billion times. Fin.
What regulation? She just said: "industry standards don't necessarily have to be governed by governments, industries (like medicine) do it themselves."
To try to 'infer' any such implied conditions on Y now would be grasping at straws...
Anyway, here is my actual position (after a page of 'technical debate'):
I am in agreement with Eriny's belief in self-regulation. I actually think there is no harm in accepting a similar principle (replace 'medical industry' with 'autonomous abortion clinics'), because if you don't like it, you can just quit. The clinics aren't setting such regulation because they all share that moral position though. The only reason why such self-regulation would prop up is because it shares the common values of its consumers, who they must ultimately satisfy. Hence, it is an accountable system - clinics who have abhorrent practices (i.e.: practices that do not serve the consumer) will have to put up with consumer demand, or shut down. On the other hand - a law imposed by non-participants of this transaction may actually distort the otherwise left-free regulations (i.e: those in line with consumer preferences), and the government should simply stay out of this business.
Pro-choice is the freedom to choose if you want an abortion. It's not the entitlement to an abortion, and it's not the entitlement to other people's knowledge about abortions.
-
LOL
what a mad read.
arguing about types of arguments is awesome! lol.
i really liked enwiabe's rebuttal. made sense to me.
I propose that we now move away from this argument that is moving further and further away from the topic and go back to the root of the discussion. Sorry to sound hypocritical even if I started it with me "advice" and "referral" distinction.
-
This issue is no way near as complex as it's being made out to be.
The funny thing is that the legislation requiring doctors to refer patients on for abortion exists to protect patients from doctors that may push their own personal ideals on to them
The patient's autonomy needs to be protected as there is an imbalance of power in the relationship, this is first year medical ethics
So, as usual, despite the constant assurance from the hardcore libertarian front on VN that they are protecting the rights of individuals, they seem to be missing that this legislation actually protects patients from doctors refusing to refer patients for personal reason, behaviour that is considered unethical in the profession.
A physician needs to be impartial, the legislation is merely a reminder.
-
[/quote]Yes, no one has any right to force others to serve them. Doing so is nothing short of slavery.
it's nothing like slavery. they're not forced to work. although doctors being forced to refer is a condition which is sub-optimal, as i argued before:
It's the state system we're talking about and hence professionals should be restricted in their ability to act according to their caprices, as they would if running their own businesses. However, as Coblin noted, the state would be liable to lose many of its best [and potentially best] people if it was too picky itself, particularly as it could easily circumvent the problem by designating certain people alone to deal with the abortion referral process, so doctors need not be concerned, unless they themselves were abortionists.
-
To talk about free markets here is absurd, it is difficult to be 100% rational in this situation, and the best outcome is not necessarily clear or guaranteed.
Preferring free markets over central planning does not require you to assume that all individuals are 100% rational 100% of the time.
-
In the end, I simply follow people's train of thought and show that their train can lead them to some pretty ugly places.
-
Anyway, here is my actual position (after a page of 'technical debate'):
I am in agreement with Eriny's belief in self-regulation. I actually think there is no harm in accepting a similar principle (replace 'medical industry' with 'autonomous abortion clinics'), because if you don't like it, you can just quit. The clinics aren't setting such regulation because they all share that moral position though. The only reason why such self-regulation would prop up is because it shares the common values of its consumers, who they must ultimately satisfy. Hence, it is an accountable system - clinics who have abhorrent practices (i.e.: practices that do not serve the consumer) will have to put up with consumer demand, or shut down. On the other hand - a law imposed by non-participants of this transaction may actually distort the otherwise left-free regulations (i.e: those in line with consumer preferences), and the government should simply stay out of this business.
Pro-choice is the freedom to choose if you want an abortion. It's not the entitlement to an abortion, and it's not the entitlement to other people's knowledge about abortions.
Hey, I think I agree with that. Wow. :D
I'm not actually sure what's wrong with the apparent 'logical' ramifications of what I argued before. I suppose if the medical industry did put in legislation that in order to be a doctor you'd have to rape your mother, or something disgusting like that, you could either choose not to be a doctor or decide to lobby against it (they could form a union!), but ultimately it would be up to the medical industry to change. Or, their ridiculousness in the public eye would render them obsolete and some other more reasonable professional body would spring up. It would never happen because of the 'first do no harm' principle which is integral to medicine, but ultimately, yes, by choosing to be a doctor, you may be choosing also to rape your mother (wow, I hope that's never quoted out of context). As long as you know where your choice will lead you before you sign up, it may be morally reprehensible, but could still possibly be expected of you.
In any case, though, enwiabe is quite right in saying that the N's and M's and so on are important. These issues are not necessarily black-and-white. The problem is, it's difficult to incorporate greyness in overall governing principles.
-
I have no problem with people having personal faith. However, Religion as an organisation, is outdated. The general populace does not need religion to be regulated now that we have a sophisticated legal system. Honestly, religion is only impeding on the opportunities we have to progress as a society. It is still the leading cause of all wars, there are still priests raping children and there are still anti-abortion and anti-IVF protesters clogging our media. The more we develop in the area of science and gene research, the more these people are likely to interfere.
-
LOL
what a mad read.
arguing about types of arguments is awesome! lol.
i really liked enwiabe's rebuttal. made sense to me.
I propose that we now move away from this argument that is moving further and further away from the topic and go back to the root of the discussion. Sorry to sound hypocritical even if I started it with me "advice" and "referral" distinction.
that reminds me of [from the xkcd blag]
...
So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.
...
-
LOL
what a mad read.
arguing about types of arguments is awesome! lol.
i really liked enwiabe's rebuttal. made sense to me.
I propose that we now move away from this argument that is moving further and further away from the topic and go back to the root of the discussion. Sorry to sound hypocritical even if I started it with me "advice" and "referral" distinction.
that reminds me of [from the xkcd blag]
...
So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.
...
Yeah, the original debate was whether it is right for the government to force doctors to refer patients onto other doctors should they have a conscientious objection to abortion (which I think is an abhorrent rejection of the idea of free speech, in the name of 'patient rights').
The patient's right is to find another doctor on their own accord...they're not locked into the conscientiously objecting doctor.
-
The patient's right is to find another doctor on their own accord...they're not locked into the conscientiously objecting doctor.
That's a very simplistic and somewhat unrealistic conclusion for you to come to.
It's just not that easy. As BA22 said, there is a power imbalance between the doctor and patient. Some doctors can be very convincing and powerful bullies. They can intimidate their patients from seeking a second opinion, especially if they have strong beliefs about what the right thing to do is.
Me and my parents have experienced this several times. Doctors have said stuff like:
-"I'm NEVER WRONG! I see that as a personal insult if you seek a second opinion. The hospital pays me a lot of money to do what I do." (A neurologist at the royal children's hospital)
-"If you go and see that doctor at that hospital, don't ever expect to step back inside this hospital again." (My cardiologist)
-One doctor rang up my dad and said, "How dare you even consider getting a second opinion. If you do, I will never see you as a patient again. And think about it; I can easily have an influence on what your reputation is as a doctor." (This was my dad's gastroenterologist)
So yeah. It can be really difficult to then seek a second opinion when you have essentially been threatened. You'd be surprised how often it happens. All my friends with cystic fibrosis have had very similar experiences. And, you've got to realise that it's difficult to seek a second opinion in the first place. It's hard to just go and find another doctor, especially when you are in such an awful situation.
When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice! And, Medicine is a career which requires you to be fairly level headed and balanced.
-
which I think is an abhorrent rejection of the idea of free speech, in the name of 'patient rights'
Or, if you see it from the other perspective:
The idea that registered doctors can refuse their patients referral and essentially treatment/help on the basis of their personal values or religious views is ludicrous.
It impinges on patient's rights, in the name of the doctor's "right to contentious objection"
(I'd just like to emphasis again that no doctor is forced or now required to perform an abortion. Some of the posts here suggest otherwise. Every doctor who has performed abortions in the past and wishes to continue to perform them will perform them. Those who do not want to don't have to.)
-
Also, the doctors don't have an inalienable right to employment.
-
The patient's right is to find another doctor on their own accord...they're not locked into the conscientiously objecting doctor.
That's a very simplistic and somewhat unrealistic conclusion for you to come to.
It's just not that easy. As BA22 said, there is a power imbalance between the doctor and patient. Some doctors can be very convincing and powerful bullies. They can intimidate their patients from seeking a second opinion, especially if they have strong beliefs about what the right thing to do is.
Me and my parents have experienced this several times. Doctors have said stuff like:
-"I'm NEVER WRONG! I see that as a personal insult if you seek a second opinion. The hospital pays me a lot of money to do what I do." (A neurologist at the royal children's hospital)
-"If you go and see that doctor at that hospital, don't ever expect to step back inside this hospital again." (My cardiologist)
-One doctor rang up my dad and said, "How dare you even consider getting a second opinion. If you do, I will never see you as a patient again. And think about it; I can easily have an influence on what your reputation is as a doctor." (This was my dad's gastroenterologist)
So yeah. It can be really difficult to then seek a second opinion when you have essentially been threatened. You'd be surprised how often it happens. All my friends with cystic fibrosis have had very similar experiences. And, you've got to realise that it's difficult to seek a second opinion in the first place. It's hard to just go and find another doctor, especially when you are in such an awful situation.
When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice! And, Medicine is a career which requires you to be fairly level headed and balanced.
Sure, that's fine.
However, it's not the government's job to do that. It should be the industry's (cf. AMA) responsibility to determine what is right - not some suits who only have a cursory understanding of medical practice.
If the industry wishes to impose the responsibility of referral on doctors by codes or custom, they may do so. Taking it a step further and legislating for it is simply going too far.
-
which I think is an abhorrent rejection of the idea of free speech, in the name of 'patient rights'
Or, if you see it from the other perspective:
The idea that registered doctors can refuse their patients referral and essentially treatment/help on the basis of their personal values or religious views is ludicrous.
It impinges on patient's rights, in the name of the doctor's "right to contentious objection"
(I'd just like to emphasis again that no doctor is forced or now required to perform an abortion. Some of the posts here suggest otherwise. Every doctor who has performed abortions in the past and wishes to continue to perform them will perform them. Those who do not want to don't have to.)
It happens already - there are cases of doctors turning patients away due to drug/substance abuse. No-one's made a law (emphasis added) against it - so why abortion?
-
How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?
-
Because it suits the arguement he's making
As far as most people i've talked to in the medical profession are concerned, nothing has really changed
-
How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?
I'm relating the fact that a doctor can turn away patients for one thing, but not another.
-
How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?
I'm relating the fact that a doctor can turn away patients for one thing, but not another.
Umm, no, that's unethical behaviour too
Unless the patient was simply after drugs, but if they hang around long enough, you might be able to help them
-
I know this isn't related to the doctor side of things but I turned on the telly when I got home from school before and All Saints repeat episode was on.
In this episode, this girl was raped by her brother and fell pregnant. She was 8 weeks pregnant at this stage of the episode. She was bashed and bruised until she shut up so he cood do what he wanted to do to her. She sought help from the hospital and one of the nurses accomapanied her to an abortion clinic. But outside the clinic an pro-life supporter yelled at her and called her a murderer etc. She ran away an emotional wreck.
She was then found later on bleeding. She had tried to self-abort by sticking a piece of wire inside herself. This killed the baby and punctured uturen artery or however u spell it. There was a good possibility that she cood die. (I don't know what happened in the end. I stopped watching).
How sad. :(
-
How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?
I'm relating the fact that a doctor can turn away patients for one thing, but not another.
Umm, no, that's unethical behaviour too
Unless the patient was simply after drugs, but if they hang around long enough, you might be able to help them
Of course it's unethical behaviour - but it's not the government's role to decide for us.
Let the industry decide on it's own accord.
(for the record, I believe that doctors ought to refer patients as a moral duty - but they should not be forced by law; rather, they should be guided by morals and ethics).
-
I know this isn't related to the doctor side of things but I turned on the telly when I got home from school before and All Saints repeat episode was on.
In this episode, this girl was raped by her brother and fell pregnant. She was 8 weeks pregnant at this stage of the episode. She was bashed and bruised until she shut up so he cood do what he wanted to do to her. She sought help from the hospital and one of the nurses accomapanied her to an abortion clinic. But outside the clinic an pro-life supporter yelled at her and called her a murderer etc. She ran away an emotional wreck.
She was then found later on bleeding. She had tried to self-abort by sticking a piece of wire inside herself. This killed the baby and punctured uturen artery or however u spell it. There was a good possibility that she cood die. (I don't know what happened in the end. I stopped watching).
How sad. :(
OMG :'(
maybe i should take to yelling at ppl who yell at those wanting an abortion
-
How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?
I'm relating the fact that a doctor can turn away patients for one thing, but not another.
Umm, no, that's unethical behaviour too
Unless the patient was simply after drugs, but if they hang around long enough, you might be able to help them
Of course it's unethical behaviour - but it's not the government's role to decide for us.
Let the industry decide on it's own accord.
(for the record, I believe that doctors ought to refer patients as a moral duty - but they should not be forced by law; rather, they should be guided by morals and ethics).
There should be no laws outlawing rape. People should be guided by their own morals and ethics.
-
How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?
I'm relating the fact that a doctor can turn away patients for one thing, but not another.
Umm, no, that's unethical behaviour too
Unless the patient was simply after drugs, but if they hang around long enough, you might be able to help them
Of course it's unethical behaviour - but it's not the government's role to decide for us.
Let the industry decide on it's own accord.
(for the record, I believe that doctors ought to refer patients as a moral duty - but they should not be forced by law; rather, they should be guided by morals and ethics).
There should be no laws outlawing rape. People should be guided by their own morals and ethics.
Rape concerns a 'transaction' where the unwilling party is being deprived of their liberty (to choose their sexual partners). This is where the government may intervene (to protect life and liberty).
In the case of this, the unwilling party (the doctor) is not being deprived of anything (and, in fact, is being deprived of their own liberties by government intervention).
In fact, the only thing they are being deprived of is the loss of a client - and that's their own choice.
-
Nope, the relationship is unbalanced, there needs to be protection for patients, this is the widely held perspective of the medical profession.
Again, the hardcore libertarian agenda is being pushed, and it is one that lacks perspective
-
which I think is an abhorrent rejection of the idea of free speech, in the name of 'patient rights'
Or, if you see it from the other perspective:
The idea that registered doctors can refuse their patients referral and essentially treatment/help on the basis of their personal values or religious views is ludicrous.
It impinges on patient's rights, in the name of the doctor's "right to contentious objection"
(I'd just like to emphasis again that no doctor is forced or now required to perform an abortion. Some of the posts here suggest otherwise. Every doctor who has performed abortions in the past and wishes to continue to perform them will perform them. Those who do not want to don't have to.)
It happens already - there are cases of doctors turning patients away due to drug/substance abuse. No-one's made a law (emphasis added) against it - so why abortion?
Kk one, you weren't clear at all in your post (a quality that prevails in a lot of your argumentative posts) and as such your post was really ambiguous. I've interpreted your argument in two different ways and rebutted each one:
1) In case you were saying that patients came to doctors to be treated for susbtance abuse.
Actually that's not true. Doctors turn them away simply because they're not TRAINED to treat them. What you've neglected to mention, sir moral mc. high horse is that they ARE obligated to refer them on to the relevant rehabilitation programs. They don't turn them away per se because they don't want to treat them it's because they CAN'T.
2) In case you were saying that the doctors were treating them for something ELSE but turned them away because they're substance abusers:
The behaviour of substance abusers is often dangerous. It actually poses a threat to the personal, physical safety of the doctor. The fact that they do abuse substances makes them prone to violent behaviour, they could potentially try to rob the doctor or make demands for drugs etc. And AGAIN, these people *should* have been referred by the doctors to the relevant rehabilitation program.
At the crux of this issue is doctor's rights vs. patient rights. In that scenario, the right of the doctor to their own physical safety is much higher than the right of the patient to care, simply because by abusing drugs they've forfeited their right to be treated as rational, sane people. Your inability to rationalise these scenarios severely weakens your argument.
tl;dr - argumentative FAIL
-
Nope, the relationship is unbalanced, there needs to be protection for patients, this is the widely held perspective of the medical profession.
Again, the hardcore libertarian agenda is being pushed, and it is one that lacks perspective
Protection in the form on intra-industry regulation. Not governmental.
The consequences for not meeting what would be considered the 'norm' / ethical in medical practice should stay within medical practice. It should not have criminal sanctions as implied by its inclusion in the Act.
I'm sure the AMA has ways and means of dealing with troublesome doctors (they have enough power as it stands).
-
Kk one, you weren't clear at all in your post (a quality that prevails in a lot of your argumentative posts) and as such your post was really ambiguous. I've interpreted your argument in two different ways and rebutted each one:
1) In case you were saying that patients came to doctors to be treated for susbtance abuse.
Actually that's not true. Doctors turn them away simply because they're not TRAINED to treat them. What you've neglected to mention, sir moral mc. high horse is that they ARE obligated to refer them on to the relevant rehabilitation programs. They don't turn them away per se because they don't want to treat them it's because they CAN'T.
2) In case you were saying that the doctors were treating them for something ELSE but turned them away because they're substance abusers:
The behaviour of substance abusers is often dangerous. It actually poses a threat to the personal, physical safety of the doctor. The fact that they do abuse substances makes them prone to violent behaviour, they could potentially try to rob the doctor or make demands for drugs etc. And AGAIN, these people *should* have been referred by the doctors to the relevant rehabilitation program.
At the crux of this issue is doctor's rights vs. patient rights. In that scenario, the right of the doctor to their own physical safety is much higher than the right of the patient to care, simply because by abusing drugs they've forfeited their right to be treated as rational, sane people. Your inability to rationalise these scenarios severely weakens your argument.
tl;dr - argumentative FAIL
So what about emotionally unstable women seeking abortion? Now the doctor can't take his safety as a higher priority.
What's not to say that said female does not fall in the above category (of 'rational, sane people')?
Moderator Action: shortened massive quote -_-
-
Rape concerns a 'transaction' where the unwilling party is being deprived of their liberty (to choose their sexual partners). This is where the government may intervene (to protect life and liberty).
In the case of this, the unwilling party (the doctor) is not being deprived of anything (and, in fact, is being deprived of their own liberties by government intervention).
In fact, the only thing they are being deprived of is the loss of a client - and that's their own choice.
And I would contend that the doctor is being deprived of his/her right to feel safe in his own environment. Your argument has failed simply because you have failed to realise this important issue. This governs the decision to turn substance abusers away.
Moderator Action: shortened massive quote -_-
-
So what about emotionally unstable women seeking abortion? Now the doctor can't take his safety as a higher priority.
What's not to say that said female does not fall in the above category (of 'rational, sane people')?
Ah, I love this part of the argument, where your argument fails so badly that you grasp desperately at the straws.
:) I've said my piece, and you've offered no substantive rebuttal other than a silly "what-if" scenario that has no bearing and that I've already covered. IF the mother is mentally unstable and poses a risk to the personal safety of the doctor, then the doctor is perfectly within his/her rights to turn the patient away, but NOT because she is seeking an abortion.
Moderator Action: shortened massive quote -_-
-
So what about emotionally unstable women seeking abortion? Now the doctor can't take his safety as a higher priority.
What's not to say that said female does not fall in the above category (of 'rational, sane people')?
Obviously if the woman was being physically abusive, s/he could refuse to see her or call the police... But this is just completely irrelevant to your original argument, which is "doctors should not have to refer patients if they have a moral objection to abortion" not whether a doctor has a right to refuse to see a patient who's being physically abusive...
This argument is about the doctor's MORALS, not his/her safety
Your argument started off as, "Doctors shouldn't have to perform or be involved in the abortion process if they have a moral objection to it, it impinges on their rights to free speech" (even though they're not forced into anything).
--> To "The government shouldn't impose these values, it should be the industry's responsibility" (even though the government and health department runs the health care system and employs the majority of doctors...ahem)
--->To some distant relative argument about pregnant women being abusive/mentally unstable and the doctors right to refuse to see her...
Dude, honestly.
-
"Dude, honestly" indeed.
Excal, you really need to learn to get off the moral high horse sometimes >_>
-
is that they ARE obligated to refer them on to the relevant rehabilitation programs
Really? I don't recall seeing a law (outside of 'negligence', which is a tort rather than a criminal act) dealing with this. There will be probably be codes of conduct pertaining to this, and that's fine.
IF the mother is mentally unstable and poses a risk to the personal safety of the doctor, then the doctor is perfectly within his/her rights to turn the patient away, but NOT because he/she is seeking an abortion.
Interesting interpretations of the law can be made by the courts if the ground-work is laid, particularly if the female seeking abortion decides to escalate the situation in this kind of situation ('he turned me away because I wanted an abortion') and the doctor does not sufficiently defend him/herself.
Why give an inch to take a mile, so to speak.
a quality that prevails in a lot of your argumentative posts
sir moral mc. high horse
Hello ad hominem.
-
is that they ARE obligated to refer them on to the relevant rehabilitation programs
Really? I don't recall seeing a law (outside of 'negligence', which is a tort rather than a criminal act) dealing with this. There will be probably be codes of conduct pertaining to this, and that's fine.
Torts is still law ...
-
No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid. You're now hanging onto vary shaky threads of your old shell of an argument that you've since completely abandoned.
I have nothing more to say to you except that this is very reminiscent of the Khalid thread and other arguments where you've done this moral high-horse bullshit. It is quite pathetic, really.
-
So what about emotionally unstable women seeking abortion? Now the doctor can't take his safety as a higher priority.
What's not to say that said female does not fall in the above category (of 'rational, sane people')?
Obviously if the woman was being physically abusive, s/he could refuse to see her or call the police... But this is just completely irrelevant to your original argument, which is "doctors should not have to refer patients if they have a moral objection to abortion" not whether a doctor has a right to refuse to see a patient who's being physically abusive...
This argument is about the doctor's MORALS, not his/her safety
Some people took my example of substance abusers a little too much to heart and more or less derailed the argument. Perhaps it wasn't the best example.
Your argument started off as, "Doctors shouldn't have to perform or be involved in the abortion process if they have a moral objection to it, it impinges on their rights to free speech" (even though they're not forced into anything).
Yes, they are. They have to refer now. The Act is fairly black and white on this one.
--> To "The government shouldn't impose these values, it should be the industry's responsibility" (even though the government and health department runs the health care system and employs the majority of doctors...ahem)
By 'industry', I refer to what is considered the 'norm' for behaving as a doctor in addition to any oaths, traditions and ethics that are taught as part of doctor training. Think of it as 'how to behave correctly and 'fit into' a group' - and if you don't, you'd be asked to leave the group (in the case of medicine and the AMA, this effectively ends your career).
The medical industry as a whole would self-regulate. There is no need to introduce legislation to add onto whatever is being determined by the medical community.
As for your point regarding the government ownership of the majority of medical facilities and staff in Australia - I'd like to name how many MPs have their heads around how the medical industry works well enough to regulate it themselves. It would be unreasonable to say that the government is more capable of understanding how things work (and ought to work) in the medical community than those actively within it.
--->To some distant relative argument about pregnant women being abusive/mentally unstable and the doctors right to refuse to see her...
Dude, honestly.
I'm not the only one guilty of derailing the argument.
-
is that they ARE obligated to refer them on to the relevant rehabilitation programs
Really? I don't recall seeing a law (outside of 'negligence', which is a tort rather than a criminal act) dealing with this. There will be probably be codes of conduct pertaining to this, and that's fine.
Torts is still law ...
Well, yes - but there are generally no criminal consequences for it (except in fraud).
-
No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid. You're now hanging onto vary shaky threads of your old shell of an argument that you've since completely abandoned.
I have nothing more to say to you except that this is very reminiscent of the Khalid thread and other arguments where you've done this moral high-horse bullshit. It is quite pathetic, really.
I thought you stopped posting here ~40 posts ago.
-
No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid.
Explain.
-
No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid. You're now hanging onto vary shaky threads of your old shell of an argument that you've since completely abandoned.
I have nothing more to say to you except that this is very reminiscent of the Khalid thread and other arguments where you've done this moral high-horse bullshit. It is quite pathetic, really.
I thought you stopped posting here ~40 posts ago.
No, I stopped posting to brendan and coblin about the X's, Y's, M's, N's and Z's etc. This was a completely different argument.
-
To refuse a woman an abortion may cause her harm, a doctor who refuses to refer a woman for an abortion despite realising a very real possibility of harm is negligent, and any harm that comes to her is ultimately due to their refusal to be an impartial practitioner.
A doctor has a duty of care, and the legislation is fair. Despite the fact that this may "restrict my rights" as a practitioner, i think this law i more than appropriate for the circumstances and is reflective of current medical practice.
-
To refuse a woman an abortion may cause her harm, a doctor who refuses to refer a woman for an abortion despite realising a very real possibility of harm is negligent, and any harm that comes to her is ultimately due to their refusal to be an impartial practitioner.
A doctor has a duty of care, and the legislation is fair. Despite the fact that this may "restrict my rights" as a practitioner, i think this law i more than appropriate for the circumstances and is reflective of current medical practice.
And I agree with you.
However, I think the regulation needs to occur with the industry association (i.e., the AMA - self-regulation) rather than an Act of Parliament. In other words, career-based sanctions rather than possible criminal penalties related to the act of refusing abortion.
Negligence and perhaps wrongful death as a result of refusal of service (secondary effect) is, of course, a consequence of the doctor's choice.
-
Where we (seem to) agree:
- The medical industry can (within reason) require that doctors act a certain way. Doctors agree to these requirements by becoming a doctor. If doctors do not fulfill their requirements they rightfully face punishment.
- No doctor should have to perform an abortion if they feel uncomfortable doing so. Equally, no doctor should have the power to stop a woman from having an abortion.
- Abortion is a complex issue in which many different opinions can be reasonably held.
It seems to me that the role of the government in all this is moot, and an issue that is not particularly interesting.
-
Where we (seem to) agree:
- The medical industry can (within reason) require that doctors act a certain way. Doctors agree to these requirements by becoming a doctor. If doctors do not fulfill their requirements they rightfully face punishment.
- No doctor should have to perform an abortion if they feel uncomfortable doing so. Equally, no doctor should have the power to stop a woman from having an abortion.
- Abortion is a complex issue in which many different opinions can be reasonably held.
It seems to me that the role of the government in all this is moot, and an issue that is not particularly interesting.
It's basically a differentiation between saying that the 'government legislates (forces) you to do this' or the 'medical industry believes that this is best practice and should be followed by all members of our organisation'.
And punishment should be kept within the industry, unless there were secondary effects of the decision.
-
Excal - stop mentioning the AMA. They don't employ doctors, they are merely a lobby group and don't really regulate or implement the actual change.
The Australian Board of Medical Practitioners registers doctors, and the condition of their registration is that they follow the code of conduct. So the Health Services Commission and board of med practitioners essentially regulates doctors' actions.
That bill was created with the advice from doctors, nurses, social workers, ethicists, health information managers etc.
Abortion is a unique topic in medicine. There is rarely a treatment or procedure which doctors/other health professionals are morally opposed to. The bill enforces that abortion is now an accepted and required medical procedure, and that doctors who are opposed to abortion still need to refer to a medical practitioner who can, at the very least, give the patient advice (not necessarily carry the procedure out), and must still get their patient assistance. This ensures patient rights are maintained.
The stuff about right to free speech makes my skin crawl. Yes, you have the right to send a letter to the editor of newspapers, join a protest group, lobby the government and voice your opinions... But it's against protocol and just plain unethical to discuss your personal beliefs and morals with a patient during a medical appointment, let alone let them influence the way you treat the individual. That's not part of free speech, it's just not on. Again, if you don't like this, leave the profession. Or go into a speciality like Intensive Care Medicine, where your patients can't communicate with you and dealing with such an issue would be rare.
-
Excal - stop mentioning the AMA. They don't employ doctors, they are merely a lobby group and don't really regulate or implement the actual change.
The Australian Board of Medical Practitioners registers doctors, and the condition of their registration is that they follow the code of conduct. So the Health Services Commission and board of med practitioners essentially regulates doctors' actions.
Apologies, my belief was AMA was the authoritative body - but obviously I'm wrong. Please consider my arguments including the AMA as being the ABMP instead.
In any case, lobby groups have a large role to play in regulation and shaping it.
That bill was created with doctors, nurses, social workers, ethicists, health information managers etc.
Abortion is a unique topic in medicine. There is rarely a treatment or procedure which doctors are morally opposed to. The bill enforces the fact that doctors who are opposed to abortion still need to refer to a medical practitioner who can, at the very least, give the patient advice (not necessarily carry the procedure out), and must still get their patient assistance. This ensures patient rights are maintained.
The stuff about right to free speech makes my skin crawl. Yes, you have the right to send a letter to the editor of newspapers, join a protest group, lobby the government and voice your opinions... But it's against protocol and just plain unethical to discuss your personal beliefs and morals with a patient during a medical appointment, let alone let them influence the way you treat the individual. It's just not on. Again, if you don't like this, leave the profession. Or go into a speciality like Intensive Care Medicine, where your patients can't communicate with you.
Like I said, if its felt so strongly within the medical community that these provisions are clearly needed and desired - then it should be implemented within the medical community. Not in an Act of Parliament where it could be taken as a prima facie reduction in freedom of speech. It should be a voluntary agreement between doctors (and, for that matter, other health-care providers) and the registration board (i.e., code of conduct).
-
Excalibur, this is what I meant by my ad-hominems, and what jessie0 has so usefully illustrated in her post. You are one of those people who enjoys being self-righteous and getting up on his moral high-horse and talking crap about matters that YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND to make yourself feel better about your sorry ass. >_>
Your complete lack of any sort of grasp of the internal workings of the medical system in Australia is truly hilarious when one considers the conviction with which you spew your crap
-
Attack the argument, not the person... haven't people including yourself told me that before? :smitten:
-
Yes, except that I've done both. And correctly identified the problems with both.
EDIT: I should mention that the ad hominems only began when excalibur simply refused to accept that he was wrong and KEPT arguing from a stupidly indefensible position just to "prove his point". As if he were trying to save face, instead of saying "yeah whoops didn't consider that" and back down. It's what he always does, and this frustrated me, so I decided to let it out. :)
-
Yes, except that I've done both. And correctly identified the problems with both.
EDIT: I should mention that the ad hominems only began when excalibur simply refused to accept that he was wrong and KEPT arguing from a stupidly indefensible position just to "prove his point". As if he were trying to save face, instead of saying "yeah whoops didn't consider that" and back down. It's what he always does, and this frustrated me, so I decided to let it out. :)
Ad hominems are never acceptable... no matter how much of an arse you think a person is with an argument. It shows that you are unable to divorce your opinions about a person with the arguments that you present which should be done in a objective manner.
-
talking crap about matters that YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND
This is what has frustrated me about this thread. Some individuals were posting information which was just completely [medically] inaccurate, or which clearly demonstrated that the person didn't understand the current structure of the health system.
I think some people don't understand and are completely unrealistic about how difficult it is to just "find" another doctor quickly, and that their GPs are the gatekeeper to many services and other doctors. It can be quite hard to seek out services when you a) don't know they exist and b) are in such difficult circumstances.
-
jessie0, agreed. I want to thank you for your pretty much expert opinion in this thread. I'm going to personally murder the entire Monash med faculty if you don't get in. :P
-
Well you'll be doing a but of murdering cause shes doing a few more VCE subs next year lol so '10 entry will be year
-
Apologies, my belief was AMA was the authoritative body - but obviously I'm wrong. Please consider my arguments including the AMA as being the ABMP instead.
Yeah, AMA is essentially a trade union.
jessie0, agreed. I want to thank you for your pretty much expert opinion in this thread. I'm going to personally murder the entire Monash med faculty if you don't get in. :P
LOL, how kind of you to volunteer to do that :P
Definitely not an "expert opinion" :S I am nowhere near an authority on the issue. I just know a little bit about the health care system and consider myself a patient advocate.
-
Yeah, she knows her shit, that's for sure.
I just had a thought though. How would you apply this new law to rural doctors. As Jessie would know, and everyone else may know, Australia is a big continent and such there are situations where towns may only have one GP to share between them. I wonder how would you apply this abortion law to this situation (and the law does say that you "must" refers).
-
I just had a thought though. How would you apply this new law to rural doctors. As Jessie would know, and everyone else may know, Australia is a big continent and such there are situations where towns may only have one GP to share between them. I wonder how would you apply this abortion law to this situation (and the law does say that you "must" refers).
The doctor would then refer the patient to another doctor in the closest city/large town.
Anyway, that's why mandatory referral is so imperative - in some country towns there is only one doctor... so how would the individual seek out resources or find another doctor then when there's barely any help available in their area? Someone would probably need to direct them to places they could go in other towns.
-
Yeah, she knows her shit, that's for sure.
I just had a thought though. How would you apply this new law to rural doctors. As Jessie would know, and everyone else may know, Australia is a big continent and such there are situations where towns may only have one GP to share between them. I wonder how would you apply this abortion law to this situation (and the law does say that you "must" refers).
does referral have a restrictive radius of 100km or something?
I'm sure there's this wonderful thing called automotive [or even locomotive] that can be used. [just a thought]
-
Yeah, she knows her shit, that's for sure.
I just had a thought though. How would you apply this new law to rural doctors. As Jessie would know, and everyone else may know, Australia is a big continent and such there are situations where towns may only have one GP to share between them. I wonder how would you apply this abortion law to this situation (and the law does say that you "must" refers).
does referral have a restrictive radius of 100km or something?
I'm sure there's this wonderful thing called automotive [or even locomotive] that can be used. [just a thought]
Yes. Even the average drive to the city could take a few hours, something that is not enjoyable even to the best of us, let alone ladies who are pregnant.
I just had a thought though. How would you apply this new law to rural doctors. As Jessie would know, and everyone else may know, Australia is a big continent and such there are situations where towns may only have one GP to share between them. I wonder how would you apply this abortion law to this situation (and the law does say that you "must" refers).
The doctor would then refer the patient to another doctor in the closest city/large town.
Anyway, that's why mandatory referral is so imperative - in some country towns there is only one doctor... so how would the individual seek out resources or find another doctor then when there's barely any help available in their area? Someone would probably need to direct them to places they could go in other towns.
How about if said doctor doesn't know anyone in the area in which said pregnant lady could actually be refered to (remembering that she will have to come back for more than one visit)?
-
1. I doubt anyone would be in their right mind to say "mmm I want an abortion, but I cbf going into the city, so I'll just have the baby."
2. I'm sure if a doctor doesn't know anyone within their vicinity, they would call a near-by hospital which would have those information. [it's only common sense to think that doctors, who are the brightest of us, also have some common sense, right?]
-
1. I doubt anyone would be in their right mind to say "mmm I want an abortion, but I cbf going into the city, so I'll just have the baby."
Not neccesarily cbf going to the city, but if I go the city, that means I have to take a few days off work which means I lose money, or maybe be seen as slacking off, which could get me fired.
-
How about if said doctor doesn't know anyone in the area in which said pregnant lady could actually be refered to (remembering that she will have to come back for more than one visit)?
He'd be a pretty incompetent doctor. They generally know most GPs who work within their district and in larger towns, and there is a GP database anyway.
Yes. Even the average drive to the city could take a few hours, something that is not enjoyable even to the best of us, let alone ladies who are pregnant.
Lol. They don't necessarily need to drive to the city to access those resources. They could just go to the closest town.
-
How about if said doctor doesn't know anyone in the area in which said pregnant lady could actually be refered to (remembering that she will have to come back for more than one visit)?
He'd be a pretty incompetent doctor. They generally know most GPs who work within their district and in larger towns, and there is a GP database anyway.
Yes. Even the average drive to the city could take a few hours, something that is not enjoyable even to the best of us, let alone ladies who are pregnant.
Lol. They don't necessarily need to drive to the city to access those resources. They could just go to the closest town.
Wouldn't this be the job of the Obstetrician though, not a GP?
-
1. I doubt anyone would be in their right mind to say "mmm I want an abortion, but I cbf going into the city, so I'll just have the baby."
Not neccesarily cbf going to the city, but if I go the city, that means I have to take a few days off work which means I lose money, or maybe be seen as slacking off, which could get me fired.
beautiful logic there. if taking a few days off work means you get fired, what would the maternity leave entail?
-
I believe that there is a legisative requirement to provide maternity leave.
-
How about if said doctor doesn't know anyone in the area in which said pregnant lady could actually be refered to (remembering that she will have to come back for more than one visit)?
He'd be a pretty incompetent doctor. They generally know most GPs who work within their district and in larger towns, and there is a GP database anyway.
Yes. Even the average drive to the city could take a few hours, something that is not enjoyable even to the best of us, let alone ladies who are pregnant.
Lol. They don't necessarily need to drive to the city to access those resources. They could just go to the closest town.
Wouldn't this be the job of the Obstetrician though, not a GP?
I can't do 1+1, I specialise in calculus.
so much that I can't tell you someone who can do 1+1, less look it up.
do you see how pointless that point was?
-
How about if said doctor doesn't know anyone in the area in which said pregnant lady could actually be refered to (remembering that she will have to come back for more than one visit)?
He'd be a pretty incompetent doctor. They generally know most GPs who work within their district and in larger towns, and there is a GP database anyway.
Yes. Even the average drive to the city could take a few hours, something that is not enjoyable even to the best of us, let alone ladies who are pregnant.
Lol. They don't necessarily need to drive to the city to access those resources. They could just go to the closest town.
Wouldn't this be the job of the Obstetrician though, not a GP?
I can't do 1+1, I specialise in calculus.
so much that I can't tell you someone who can do 1+1, less look it up.
do you see how pointless that point was?
huh?
-
Wouldn't this be the job of the Obstetrician though, not a GP?
I meant referring to another GP to provide the individual with advice on what to do.
Let me explain the process of obtaining an abortion when your GP has a moral objection:
Girl gets pregnant. Girl wants abortion. Girl goes and sees her GP (the gatekeeper of the medical world), who ultimately should refer her to a gynecologist/abortion clinic. GP says, "no I have moral objection to abortion, I will refer you to my colleague (a GP) in Geelong who will give you advice and consider your situation". Girl then goes to doctor in Geelong. Geelong doctor then gives her advice and gives her numbers of services, and ultimately refers her to an gynecologist/ abortion clinic. That way, doctor with moral objection doesn't have to be too involved by referring directly to person performing abortion but can still get his/her patient assistance. (This is all the bill requires you to do - to refer to someone else who can give them advice and link them in with resources and still be impartial.)
BTW, there is also a doctor speciality database, too :)
-
What about if said girl was from Mildura, and that the next doctor could be all the way at Ballarat (just giving as an example, I'm pretty sure there's more than one doctor in Mildura) or even interstate in NSW or SA.
The point that I'm saying is that each clinical situation is different from another, and we don't need a blanket law saying doctors must do this or that.
-
?
Doesn't stop them being able to refer the patient to another doctor
-
Even if the doctor knows that patient would or could not possibly make it to Ballarat and back?
-
When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice!
Yeah but that doesn't address *why* the content of the "code of practice" (i use quotations because that is different from a law prescribing a behavior) has to include that referral.
And just exactly how, by the fact that one can choose between many professions, does this therefore justify putting any regulation you want on a particular profession?
According to your argument a government can do anything to a particular profession, and then turn around and say "If you don't like it, don't practice!"
There might very well be a coherent and sound argument in favour of having laws prescribing that doctors must provide that referral, but "When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!" is not one of them.
-
What about if said girl was from Mildura, and that the next doctor could be all the way at Ballarat (just giving as an example, I'm pretty sure there's more than one doctor in Mildura) or even interstate in NSW or SA.
The point that I'm saying is that each clinical situation is different from another, and we don't need a blanket law saying doctors must do this or that.
That's a pretty weak debating point. "A very small number of people who require abortions live rurally and a long distance from services, so we should not make doctors refer". I can't even believe I'm refuting such an argument...
Medical services would never be that far away anyway, as they have arrangements for doctors (GPs and speciality doctors) to do a couple of days a week in few rural areas, so there would always be somewhere for refer.
And what's worse? The girl staying pregnant, or having to take a long bus trip down to Ballarat?
-
When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice!
Yeah but that doesn't address *why* the content of the "code of practice" (i use quotations because that is different from a law prescribing a behavior) has to include that referral.
And just exactly how, by the fact that one can choose between many professions, does this therefore justify putting any regulation you want on a particular profession?
According to your argument a government can do anything to a particular profession, and then turn around and say "When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!"
That sort of debate is meaningless to me, because (a) the government employs and pays the majority of doctors anyway [unlike other industries] and (b) I support universal healthcare, which I know you do not. And c) medicine is an industry where you are responsible for people's physical and emotional well being.
-
Like I said, there may be a good argument for the laws but the argument that "you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!" sure isn't one of them.
-
I believe that there is a legisative requirement to provide maternity leave.
No.. there's not actually...
Australia is one of only a few developed countries which doesn't have a national maternity/paternity leave plan. Mind you, the Rudd government is reviewing this.
-
When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice!
Yeah but that doesn't address *why* the content of the "code of practice" (i use quotations because that is different from a law prescribing a behavior) has to include that referral.
And just exactly how, by the fact that one can choose between many professions, does this therefore justify putting any regulation you want on a particular profession?
According to your argument a government can do anything to a particular profession, and then turn around and say "If you don't like it, don't practice!"
There might very well be a coherent and sound argument in favour of having laws prescribing that doctors must provide that referral, but "When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!" is not one of them.
Difference is, they only (with few exceptions) legislate in areas that are well supported by the public, for political reasons. In polls it was found that 80% of people wanted abortion legalised.
It's absurd to say that "according to your agrument" the government COULD do anything they wanted because we know there is a difference between what they COULD do and what they WOULD do.
I could become a terrorist and blow up the world if I wanted to, but doesn't mean I will do it.
Possibilities are endless when you want them to be, but realistically and within the constraints of the political world we live in, we know that some things will and won't happen and we can say that with a great yet not full deal of certainty. What I am getting at is that if we choose to ignore the barriers that are placed upon our society by which we can realistically foresee things happening, we can make any argument sound good.
-
I believe that there is a legisative requirement to provide maternity leave.
No.. there's not actually...
Australia is one of only a few developed countries which doesn't have a national maternity/paternity leave plan. Mind you, the Rudd government is reviewing this.
Not according to this
http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Pages/ContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=/workplace/Programmes/WorkFamily/Parentalleave.htm&NRNODEGUID={349CD329-1C4B-4972-BB53-5D1E93CCBDDF}&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#paid_parental_leave
What the Rudd government was proposing was PAID maternity leave, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
-
there is a difference between what they COULD do and what they WOULD do.
There is difference, but i am looking at her argument that "you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!"
In polls it was found that 80% of people wanted abortion legalised.
(1) That's different from the specific section compelling doctors to provide a referral. You could very well decriminalize abortion and not have that section.
(2) It's not difficult to see the consequences of adopting a principle that a government should do X as long as more than 50% of a certain populace think the government should do X. You may or may not have been alluding to such a principle to justify the bill but it's an important thing to highlight nevertheless.
-
Even if the doctor knows that patient would or could not possibly make it to Ballarat and back?
What? How could he predict that she wasn't "going to make it" to Ballarat? Pregnant women don't suddenly become incapable of moving by themselves. She's not going to die from getting into a car/bus/train because she's pregnant. Some women are actually quite active. You'd actually be doing more harm if you didn't refer on.
What the Rudd government was proposing was PAID maternity leave, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
My mistake, I thought you meant paid maternity leave. But how is that going to assist her economically and how is relevant to this debate?
"Oh, this woman got raped and got pregnant, and had absolutely no support and worked at Safeway. She lived rurally so doctor didn't refer her to services in a town 2 hrs away. So she ended up having baby. She has barely any money or support and she lives below the poverty line, and suffers from depression Oh, but that's ok! Because there's maternity leave!"
-
Jess and Costa hereby choose to refrain from posting in this thread citing academic reasons.
16/10/08
-
What about if said girl was from Mildura, and that the next doctor could be all the way at Ballarat (just giving as an example, I'm pretty sure there's more than one doctor in Mildura) or even interstate in NSW or SA.
The point that I'm saying is that each clinical situation is different from another, and we don't need a blanket law saying doctors must do this or that.
That's a pretty weak debating point. "A very small number of people who require abortions live rurally and a long distance from services, so we should not make doctors refer". I can't even believe I'm refuting such an argument...
Medical services would never be that far away anyway, as they have arrangements for doctors (GPs and speciality doctors) to do a couple of days a week in few rural areas, so there would always be somewhere for refer.
And what's worse? The girl staying pregnant, or having to take a long bus trip down to Ballarat?
That's a very condescending attitude to rural people Jess.
With the current doctor shortage(especially obs people) and the limited amount of time (24 weeks with this legisation), it may be hard for pregnant mom to actually be referred in time to actually undergo the procedure (which is surgery so you also need the facililities).
With the current laws, Doctors must give referrals, not matter what the individual situation is. If they don't they could easily be brought to court for it. Things like this should be in the purview of the Medical Practictioner's Board of Victoria who would have people aware of the situation and would be better place to pass judgement.
-
your point is?
[and how is that condescending?]
-
I'm trying to defend ALL patient's rights, including those who live rurally. It's not that hard to refer to another bloody doctor, EVEN if you live rurally - as I said before, you can refer patients to neighbouring towns. Many Ambulatory doctors are still available to see. To refer to the example you used; Ballarat isn't bloody Buenos Aires. Minor surgeries are performed all throughout rural Victoria. In fact, abortions are performed in Lorne, which has a tiny hospital.
Anyway, there are obviously exceptions to the law. They're not gonna go, "OH HEY, IT SAYS THAT ON THE BILL, SO WE WILL ENFORCE IT DESPITE ANY ARGUMENT THEY BRING FORTH IN THEIR DEFENSE!!!!111"
If a doctor's defensive is, "The patient came to the clinic at 23 weeks asking for an abortion, and the person I referred her to couldn't fit her in before the 24th week", then I'm PRETTY DARN SURE they'd accept it with sufficient evidence if it were brought to court. People who work in the Judiciary system aren't mentally retarded. But the odds of that even happening are pretty low, because abortion clinics tend to try and fit you in if it's urgent and if there's a time frame involved. (And Abortions can be performed after 24 weeks with the approval of two doctors.)
Whilst there is a doctor shortage, patients are still sufficiently treated in most cases.
*Sorry Costa :P I had a study break... haha
-
Why is it so important that doctors must give a referral? If that's what patients want, then they'll demand it by choosing the doctors who do. It doesn't need a government to impose that value. Even if the government law is in line with consumer demand (hence non-binding and redundant), it simply makes the medical industry inflexible to shocks which could change consumer preferences.
I agree that it's pretty trivial to argue about referral, but I am opposed to the government coming in and deciding the values, when the market can do it perfectly fine on its own.
For those who use the argument of information asymmetry, that it's not easy to find another doctor - even if that premise were true, it wouldn't be true anymore in a society where it was important to know how to find other doctors. The incentives change, and the market will adapt for it. Even if you disagree with my vision of how things would adapt, the proper road to take is by decreasing information asymmetry by providing more information, not through coercion, but through incentives.
If the argument is that there is a market failure, the counter-argument is that the government solution is bound to be a government failure - and that there is a better fix.
-
Why is it so important that doctors must give a referral? If that's what patients want, then they'll demand it by choosing the doctors who do. It doesn't need a government to impose that value. Even if the government law is in line with consumer demand (hence non-binding and redundant), it simply makes the medical industry inflexible to shocks which could change consumer preferences.
I agree that it's pretty trivial to argue about referral, but I am opposed to the government coming in and deciding the values, when the market can do it perfectly fine on its own.
For those who use the argument of information asymmetry, that it's not easy to find another doctor - even if that premise were true, it wouldn't be true anymore in a society where it was important to know how to find other doctors. The incentives change, and the market will adapt for it. Even if you disagree with my vision of how things would adapt, the proper road to take is by decreasing information asymmetry by providing more information, not through coercion, but through incentives.
If the argument is that there is a market failure, the counter-argument is that the government solution is bound to be a government failure - and that there is a better fix.
Your opinions would work perfectly if we eliminated all human emotion and variation from the world.
-
Oh, please.
That's such an unsubstantiated response. Yes, I am a rational person and I am a straight thinker, but I have emotions too. I don't impose that value onto others, and I don't assume everyone is like that. Here is what I believe: everyone has their own values, and it is reflected in how they act. Some of these actions are actions in the marketplace, where they demand goods and services in accordance to their own individual preferences, not mine.
Never do I (or economic analysis in general) assume a homogenous, pure-thinking population. Emotions and idiosyncracies are perfectly compatible with economic analysis. This can be seen from one of the most basic principles of economics: the demand curve - it is not a flat line because everyone is willing to pay different values, because everyone has different preferences.
Dare I say it, Mao (and everyone else) is actually rational, whether he believes it or not. It is an inescapable definition, because rational behaviour is behaviour that is based on your personal values - and there are no restrictions on those, not in economics, and not in my mind. Clearly, those who believe economics assumes humans are robotic (rational, emotionless and all the same) simply misunderstand economics.
-
your point is?
[and how is that condescending?]
She seems to be implying that there's only a few of them, so we don't need to care about them at all.
-
If anything, it is the legislator who is assuming the population is homogenous (no variation in population).
Such a law attempts to 'protect' the consumer by assuming that all consumers would definitely only demand doctors who want to refer (could be true).
* If it is true, then the law is redundant, because by natural mechanisms of the market, such a rule would be already installed by the market - those who don't abide by that rule get no business.
* If it isn't true, then there will be some inefficient allocation of resources. It may be more efficient to utilise doctors that do not want to refer in some cases. The industry doesn't have to be homogenous.
More importantly, the "truth" doesn't remain static. Preferences could change for some unknown reason, and it is best to allow the industry to be flexible - rather than bounded by laggy, redundant, and potentially harmful (inefficient) legislation.
Either way, such legislation is most likely justified by value judgements which make generalisations about society. On the other hand, no legislation would be able to accommodate for both potentially useful talent from doctors that did not want to refer (for whatever reason), and doctors that did - it doesn't make any generalisations about consumers, it lets them pick for themselves.
So in fact, it is this path of legislation that is irreconcilable with the fact that there is variance within the human population. It tries to create a homogenous industry, assuming identical consumers.
-
there is a difference between what they COULD do and what they WOULD do.
There is difference, but i am looking at her argument that "you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!"
I've addressed this already. It isn't as though not being a doctor is your only option, although if you can't fulfill the requirements of being a doctor, you should not be a doctor, unless you can compel others to agree with you and change the requirements associated with being a doctor. This is the same for any job.
-
I see what you're all doing. Getting to 50,000 posts in a single thread, for that site redesign, without enwiabe closing it down :P
-
This is the same for any job.
No it isn't.
It is far from the case that in all other job market governments impose as many regulations as they do for medical practitioners. There are price caps, quotas and barriers to entry to the medical profession all imposed or lobbied for by the self-interested medical unions to prevent competitive threats to their privileged position. And people then wonder why we have a shortage of doctors...
-
Most professions that require higher qualifications are regulated. Eg. Plumbing
-
Like I said, there may be a good argument for the laws but the argument that "you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!" sure isn't one of them.
It's simply a question of efficiency; a particular nuance of a law increasing civil liberty might be ill-advised in terms of efficiency, but there's nothing wrong with the argument "you agree to work by a code of practice...If you don't like it, don't practice!". Doctors [and others] aren't owed employment by the government.
-
Yeah, but doctors aren't state-employed - thank god.
There is a degree of choice with Medicare.
-
This is the same for any job.
No it isn't.
It is far from the case that in all other job market governments impose as many regulations as they do for medical practitioners. There are price caps, quotas and barriers to entry to the medical profession all imposed or lobbied for by the self-interested medical unions to prevent competitive threats to their privileged position. And people then wonder why we have a shortage of doctors...
Wait, how is it not the same for every job? Sure, the restrictions are different in nature, but there are always going to be things that you have to do in your job which may not necessarily be what you want to do. Things from wearing uniforms to abiding by a code of practice are all conditions of employment.
-
Why would you want to abort without saving at a save point?
-
Why would you want to abort without saving at a save point?
That would be like saving 3 months into a pregnancy.. "Oh, I can't play now *save* I'll finish having this baby another time" :P
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
+1
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
Exactly my viewpoint, except from an agnostic.
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
When you become a Doctor your religion should not get in the way. Women should have the choice its is their body after all. Everyone regardless of religion should be able to make decisions for themselves. Or maybe we should ban catholics from being doctors if they are going to pick and choose which parts of the job they are willing to do.
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
When you become a Doctor your religion should not get in the way. Women should have the choice its is their body after all. Everyone regardless of religion should be able to make decisions for themselves. Or maybe we should ban catholics from being doctors if they are going to pick and choose which parts of the job they are willing to do.
ban catholics? dont think we should be taking a step back toward the 17th century british penal laws
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
When you become a Doctor your religion should not get in the way. Women should have the choice its is their body after all. Everyone regardless of religion should be able to make decisions for themselves. Or maybe we should ban catholics from being doctors if they are going to pick and choose which parts of the job they are willing to do.
ban catholics? dont think we should be taking a step back toward the 17th century british penal laws
But you agree that catholicism is an excuse for not allowing women choice?
-
But you agree that catholicism is an excuse for not allowing women choice?
But do you agree that allowing women choice is an excuse for not allowing doctors choice?
-
Religion should not influence doctors, thats what im saying. Allowing women choice is more important than the issue of religion. Doctors have the choice..when they choose to become a doctor on the other hand many women that become pregnant are denied this choice. I suggest that if a doctor cannot perform the duties of being a doctor because of religion they shouldn't be a doctor.
-
Since when was it defined as a 'duty of a doctor'?
If its desired by the industry (i.e., by its users), it should regulate itself. There is no need for the legislation to intervene on such a low-level matter.
-
If a doctor is catholic and doesn't like abortions they should be in an area of medicine that has nothing to do with...ABORTIONS!
Abortions are not an "industry."
-
Well, as a Catholic, I am against abortion.
But, let's think about it in a human way. I will consider the case where the expecting mother has been abandoned by the father.
Is it right to blame the woman while the man walks off burden-free? I think that we really need to give the woman the final option.
Also, I am against forcing Catholic doctors to conduct abortion surgeries. It's a religious belief. If Sikhs are allowed to grow their beards at school and Muslim women wear hijabs (both of which are perfectly acceptable), why aren't we allowed to preserve our belief's doctrines as well?
When you become a Doctor your religion should not get in the way. Women should have the choice its is their body after all. Everyone regardless of religion should be able to make decisions for themselves. Or maybe we should ban catholics from being doctors if they are going to pick and choose which parts of the job they are willing to do.
ban catholics? dont think we should be taking a step back toward the 17th century british penal laws
But you agree that catholicism is an excuse for not allowing women choice?
Women have the option of finding another doctor who is willing to perform the necessary operation. If the Catholics do not want to perform the operation, no laws should force them to do so. Such laws would be discriminatory and forcing many obstetrician out of job due to moral obligations.
-
If a doctor is catholic and doesn't like abortions they should be in an area of medicine that has nothing to do with...ABORTIONS!
Abortions are not an "industry."
Technically, obstetricians are primarily about delivering babies, not abortions. Many doctors are willing to do abortions since it is more high-paying (up to 5 times more I heard), and they don't have to be Catholic.
-
Thats very naive suggesting that doctors only perform abortions because it is "high paying"
-
If a doctor is catholic and doesn't like abortions they should be in an area of medicine that has nothing to do with...ABORTIONS!
Abortions are not an "industry."
I refer to industry as a generic term (and, specifically, medicine as a whole). You might not think of it that way, but health is no different to any other service industry. You go to a doctor, you get (medical) advice and you pay for the doctor's time.
If you read the act, it makes no distinction between what type of doctor would be legally obliged to make a referral.
Like I said, I don't really mind that if it were the 'best practice' for doctors to refer patients on. In fact, I believe that is what it is. But there is no need for the government to intervene to force people to do it - if it is the right thing to do in the medical community, then it will be done lest the 'morally incorrect' doctor be scorned in the community.
In short, legislation is inflexible. Market forces can respond to change much faster than legislation.
-
Allowing women choice is more important than the issue of religion.
Well, firstly women do have the choice - there are plenty of obstetricians who are not catholic and are thus not restricted by their religion.
Secondly, it is hypocritical to deny one freedom of choice (religion) in order to promote another (women's).
Performing abortions are by no means the only responsibility of an obstetrician, so you can't really say "if they don't want to do it they shouldn't have become one in the first place". That's like telling someone that they shouldn't have become a lawyer just because they don't want to take on a certain case.
-
Thats very naive suggesting that doctors only perform abortions because it is "high paying"
I am sure that there are doctors who perform abortion for many other reasons than the pay.
I think you misinterpreted me: I meant that there are many non-Catholic doctors available for the procedure.
With the abortion case, I would like to straighten out some of my beliefs:
1. Women should be allowed to choose to undergo abortion LEGALLY and SAFELY
2. Although I oppose abortion where the conception could have been prevented (ie. the child was conceived of consensual relationship between two adults), I believe that this is a matter between the couple and especially the woman, since she is the one having the baby. After all, no matter how much us men say we empathise with the pains and aftermath of a child-birth, we will never really understand it. As a man, I understand that my understanding of pregnancy, stress of abortions is, and will always be, limited
3. Abortions are generally seriously thought about and 99% time, not a trivial decision by the potential mother
4. In some situations, the father escapes responsibility, and in the others, the mother cannot guarantee 100% support from the father for the next 18 years. For woman, it becomes obligation once the baby's born, for men, it is slightly more obligating than free will.
5. Giving up the child for adoption can be a painful process, especially for the mother, especially after all the labour and 10 months bonding she had with the child. Where she is in no position to be able to bring up the child, she will be emotionally scarred for life.
6. Therefore, the woman should always be given the final decision.
With forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortion:
1. Women have access to many doctors who are willing to conduct the abortion procedure who are not Catholic
2. Many Catholic doctors become obstericians to deliver babies which is considered a holy process
3. Abortion procedure is NOT the main role of an obsterician
4. Women would receive far better treatment, both emotionally and physically, from a willing doctor. Unwilling Catholic doctors are more likely to make them feel more guilty about the procedure and far less likely to reassure them about their rights as a woman
5. Many women who are considering abortion become emotionally unstable and a strong emotional support is needed from everyone, including the doctor, in order to not psychologically scar them for life.
Catholic doctors reaction:
1. Many doctors would be psychologically scarred due to having betrayed their religious doctrine
2. Many doctors are likely to quit, resulting in less obstetricians, which would mean less available doctors to meet women's other needs (eg. childbirth) or replacement with second-rate doctors
Political reaction:
1. This new legislation will be opposed heavily by the Catholic Church
2. Potential high-profile legal case, which would cost tax payers a lot of money which could have been spent better elsewhere
3. Since Catholic voters form a large percentage of the Australian population, the Government would need to do something in order them to recoup their general support
4. The Government will be forced to openly condemn the Church, which would lead to discrimination of Catholics in general, and may earn the Church antagonism from women's rights groups
5. Many who do not understand the Church will be quick to follow suit and this may create a wave of hatred towards the religion, leading to discrimination
As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.
But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?
Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
-
To the last point about Jesus (I can't quote on my phone) that really depends on a persons religious views, and could potentially offend members of this site that are of different religious beliefs (not saying that you have offended anyone, just that a statement such as the one mentioned above, could be seen in a negative way).
-
To the last point about Jesus (I can't quote on my phone) that really depends on a persons religious views, and could potentially offend members of this site that are of different religious beliefs (not saying that you have offended anyone, just that a statement such as the one mentioned above, could be seen in a negative way).
I have heeded to your advice and removed the potentially offending statement.
-
Women have the option of finding another doctor who is willing to perform the necessary operation. If the Catholics do not want to perform the operation, no laws should force them to do so. Such laws would be discriminatory and forcing many obstetrician out of job due to moral obligations.
Exactly - it is their own loss if they do not wish to perform the operation.
Just as employers who discriminate against perfectly capable people - who happen to be women, black, or some other excuse - do so at their own loss. Laws against these things are unnecessary, as the economy merely self-regulates like so: If someone doesn't want to provide it, you can't force them, but if someone else will, then everything will be okay - merely the discriminator misses out.
And if no one else will, the industry wouldn't exist in the first place.
If you fail to recognise that this position is actually pro-choice, then you do not understand choice: you are merely taxing choice from others to give choice to others. I would suggest signing up to a socialist country.
-
It is simple, if someone, regardless of religion, becomes a doctor then they must take on the responsibilities of being a doctor. The governement is not discriminating against religion in legislating this. What next, should people in prison be denied medical treatment because they have broken one of the ten commandments?
-
It is simple, if someone, regardless of religion, becomes a doctor then they must take on the responsibilities of being a doctor. The governement is not discriminating against religion in legislating this. What next, should people in prison be denied medical treatment because they have broken one of the ten commandments?
To put it simply, helping someone in jail is not against Catholic doctrine. Assisting abortion surgeries is. So your analogy is invalid.
-
But has someone that is in jail not broken the "catholic doctrine?"
-
But has someone that is in jail not broken the "catholic doctrine?"
Yes:
1. The guy in jail has committed a sin
2. The doctor helping the guy DOES not commit a sin (otherwise Jesus is one of the worst sinners)
The reason abortion surgery is a sin is because the doctor ASSISTS in the sinful process of abortion (according to the doctrine). Helping a sinful man does NOT make the doctor an accomplice in his sins.
-
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.
-
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.
Clearly it is evident that you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I will just reiterate what I said before:
As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.
But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?
Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women?
And we are not discriminating women. If men had a womb and it was MEN giving birth not WOMEN, the doctrine would still stand.
That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health.
I would suggest that abortion surgeries be a specific branch of obstetrician but it currently is not the case.
-
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.
Clearly it is evident that you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I will just reiterate what I said before:
As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.
But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?
Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women?
And we are not discriminating women. If men had a womb and it was MEN giving birth not WOMEN, the doctrine would still stand.
"mandatory pregnancy advisors" what a ridiculous suggestion... more bureacracy is definetly not needed. As for stimulating the economy I have a great deal of doubt that a mandatory pregnancy advisors will do anything positive in fact it would be irresponsible for the governement to consider such a pointless idea. I think a catholic doctor will live even if they do refer a patient to a different doctor, that being such a difficult task and all.
-
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women? "Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen." That is exactly what any catholic person considering becoming a doctor should be thinking about, society cannot allow doctors to "pick and choose" when it comes to peoples health. What must be remembered is that no one is forcing doctors to perform abortions.
Clearly it is evident that you are not reading my posts thoroughly. I will just reiterate what I said before:
As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.
But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?
Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
Does that not mean that the catholic religion is discriminating against women?
And we are not discriminating women. If men had a womb and it was MEN giving birth not WOMEN, the doctrine would still stand.
"mandatory pregnancy advisors" what a ridiculous suggestion... more bureacracy is definetly not needed. As for stimulating the economy I have a great deal of doubt that a mandatory pregnancy advisors will do anything positive in fact it would be irresponsible for the governement to consider such a pointless idea. I think a catholic doctor will live even if they do refer a patient to a different doctor, that being such a difficult task and all.
Did you read what I said? It's not the matter of life death, it's the matter of religious beliefs. Although you do present some rational arguments, you occasionally sound emotionally charged.
As for your comment that my suggestion is ridiculous, I am not going to respond to it, since I would like response from the general public instead of clash between our two predictions.
-
So with the mandatory pregnancy advisors, is it discriminating by making catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors give advice about abortions. I mean would that be discrimination by only allowing non catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors?
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
Catholics do violate women's rights they constantly launched attacks against abortions and allowing women choice.
-
So with the mandatory pregnancy advisors, is it discriminating by making catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors give advice about abortions. I mean would that be discrimination by only allowing non catholic mandatory pregnancy advisors?
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
Catholics do violate women's rights they constantly launched attacks against abortions and allowing women choice.
It would be quite wrong of you to suggest that Catholics violate women's rights.
If a women has abortion, both the mother AND father are sinful not just the mother.
The reason we discourage abortion is because we believe that every life should be allowed to live, and not have its mother decide this for them.
I would want to clarify that whilst I oppose abortion, I oppose making abortion illegal since this would be placing Catholic beliefs over others and may cause religious conflicts.
-
Also, I do believe that abortion is always wrong. I do not try to convince others because I am a man, not a woman, so I have no right to make any suggestions to women about what they know better.
-
cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!
Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.
-
cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!
Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.
Doctors do get choose whether or not they perform abortions. Throughout their career, they choose to become an obestrician, they choose to gain training to perform abortions but most importantly they choose to become a doctor.
How will requiring doctors to refer patients lead to less obestricians? Have catholics never heard of professionalism and how can a doctor that picks and chooses patients be taken seriously?
"Get over it," all those catholic doctors out there should get over it all that is being is asked is for them to have accountability, so what if they have to refer a patient to another doctor. If god is so great wouldn't he forgive them?
-
cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!
Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.
Doctors do get choose whether or not they perform abortions. Throughout their career, they choose to become an obestrician, they choose to gain training to perform abortions but most importantly they choose to become a doctor.
Gynaecologists receive the exact same training as obstetricians (in fact there are part of the same college). Yet, not all gynaecologists choose to do the work of obstetricians. Should there be a legislative requirement forcing gynaecologists to work as obstetricians, just merely on the fact that they have the training of obstetricians? I think not.
If you look at it, there are many procedures that doctors choose not to perform, for various reasons. I mean, on Sunday Night a few months ago, there was even a GP refusing to vaccinate patients because she believed it was a "risky medical intervention". As much as I believe that vaccinations should be given to patients, I don't believe there should be a legislative requirement for this. If a patient dies or suffers as a result of the suggestion from their doctors, then that can be dealt with existing regulatory systems (such as the Medical Practitioners Board). There's no need for an Act of Parliament for this.
-
cardiovascular, if you want less bureaucracy and regulation, then let the doctors choose whether they want to perform abortions or not. If it is really such a problem that many obestricians do not want to perform them, it will become a bargaining chip for the willing ones to advertise their services to abortion seekers!
There are legislative requirements for vaccination and the medical practioners board was built upon by an act of parliament. http://medicalboardvic.org.au/content.php?sec=140
There is a need for doctor to be accountable and that isn't discrimination. The governement should not need to make one set of rules for each religion.
The legislation will not force any doctor to perform an abortion, it simply requires doctors to be accountable and if they have a problem with abortion ie because of religious belief, they must refer to patient to another doctor.
Forcing doctors to perform abortions will just lead to the loss of perfectly capable Catholic obestricians.
Doctors do get choose whether or not they perform abortions. Throughout their career, they choose to become an obestrician, they choose to gain training to perform abortions but most importantly they choose to become a doctor.
Gynaecologists receive the exact same training as obstetricians (in fact there are part of the same college). Yet, not all gynaecologists choose to do the work of obstetricians. Should there be a legislative requirement forcing gynaecologists to work as obstetricians, just merely on the fact that they have the training of obstetricians? I think not.
If you look at it, there are many procedures that doctors choose not to perform, for various reasons. I mean, on Sunday Night a few months ago, there was even a GP refusing to vaccinate patients because she believed it was a "risky medical intervention". As much as I believe that vaccinations should be given to patients, I don't believe there should be a legislative requirement for this. If a patient dies or suffers as a result of the suggestion from their doctors, then that can be dealt with existing regulatory systems (such as the Medical Practitioners Board). There's no need for an Act of Parliament for this.
-
?
-
[IMG]http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1182/idetectfail.jpg[/img]
-
There are legislative requirements for vaccination and the medical practioners board was built upon by an act of parliament. http://medicalboardvic.org.au/content.php?sec=140
There is a need for doctor to be accountable and that isn't discrimination. The governement should not need to make one set of rules for each religion.
The legislation will not force any doctor to perform an abortion, it simply requires doctors to be accountable and if they have a problem with abortion ie because of religious belief, they must refer to patient to another doctor.
-
I wonder if you feel silly mocking religion, after finding out that I am actually agnostic. I am not in defense of Catholicism. I don't care what God thinks of the Catholic doctor. I am in defense of the right for Catholic doctors (who have the right to choose their own values, and I respect that) to make the choice about what services they provide for society.
That service includes providing "abortions" or providing "recommendations for abortions". If we are in a free society, that means we are free to make the choice of what jobs we wish to do, whether that is a job requiring extremely technical skills and labour (abortion), or making a simple statement (speech/written).
Catholic doctors may feel it is immoral to provide information about where one can get an abortion. Hence, good Catholic doctors may feel this is a significant barrier to becoming an obestrician (waste of perfectly capable talent). The onus is on the pregnant mother to find out where she can get an abortion - she has no "right" to force it out of the mouth of the Catholic doctor. She can ask, but she cannot force it. Everyone has to be given choice, if you are pro-choice - you can't steal choice from one person and give it to another, that is socialism.
If you are truly against bureaucracy, let the market find its own way to connect those who are seeking abortions (demand) and those who want to supply abortions (supply).
-
Doctors are in a postion of great responsibilty and religous belief should not affect their judgement when they are at work, they can be as catholic as they want when they are in their own time, however when they are on the time of the victorian public, taxpayers, they should have accountability and should serve their job as a doctor without needing to play the "catholic" card.
-
cardiovascular, are you pro-choice?
-
I am pro choice, I belive that women deserve the choice as it is their body, their decision and it affects them the most. I believe that these often vulnerbale women need to be offered the greatest possible care and I believe that they should not be betrayed by their doctors moral beliefs. Doctors should be professional and have the decency to provide the patients with information regardless of their personal religious beliefs.
-
Frankly, I don't care what 'card' they are playing. People should be allowed to practice whatever they like without being confined into boxes, like "doctors must provide these services..." according to the law.
Doing so only limits the flexibility of goods and services that the economy can provide to society. Why should a capable obestrician who can perform all the acts of giving birth to babies have to worry about abortions if he or she does not wish to think about them? As long as this obestrician is not advertising that abortions are available there (false information), then I only see justification for freedom.
I imagine there would be a great deal of non-Catholic people who are against abortions too. Depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as murder - that's not a religious viewpoint, that's just a viewpoint, and you should be free to choose whether you give advice about that or not, as a doctor.
You are favouring a position that is anti-choice, because you are against the freedom of doctors to make choices. You can only be pro-choice if both parties are choosing. You can't steal choice from one party (the doctor), and give it to the other. Aren't you imposing your own moral beliefs (of what some might see as baby-murdering) on those doctors?
Abortion-seekers can just find doctors that are willing to perform the act - why can't you accept that?
-
A better case for the legislation is that it forces all obestricians to consider abortions as part of the 'toolkit' with regards to medical advice for the welfare of the patient. Doctors who are opposed to abortions may not recommend it (on their moral beliefs), and avoid it altogether - a threat to the patient's health.
How do you enforce that though? How does the patient know when they aren't being given the complete information? If they did they wouldn't need an obestrician in the first place.
Thus, it is important for the patient to shop around and find the right doctors for this. Because the law cannot protect you alone (see my post about moral hazard in my signature), you have to look after yourself. Unless we acknowledge that self-responsibility is the key to most problems, then most problems will remain as the government tries to babysit us forever.
-
Frankly, I don't care what 'card' they are playing. People should be allowed to practice whatever they like without being confined into boxes, like "doctors must provide these services..." according to the law.
Doing so only limits the flexibility of goods and services that the economy can provide to society. Why should a capable obestrician who can perform all the acts of giving birth to babies have to worry about abortions if he or she does not wish to think about them? As long as this obestrician is not advertising that abortions are available there (false information), then I only see justification for freedom.
I imagine there would be a great deal of non-Catholic people who are against abortions too. Depending on how you look at it, it can be seen as murder - that's not a religious viewpoint, that's just a viewpoint, and you should be free to choose whether you give advice about that or not, as a doctor.
You are favouring a position that is anti-choice, because you are against the freedom of doctors to make choices. You can only be pro-choice if both parties are choosing. You can't steal choice from one party (the doctor), and give it to the other. Aren't you imposing your own moral beliefs (of what some might see as baby-murdering) on those doctors?
Abortion-seekers can just find doctors that are willing to perform the act - why can't you accept that?
You believe that doctors should not be bound by legislation and held accountable? Google, Dr. Jayant Patel, he was left with little accountability and look what happened.
Women seeking abortions are more often than not in a delicate pyschological state of mind and for them a visit to their GP maybe much easier for them than fronting up to an abortion clinic, in order to ensure that women do not fall through the "gap" doctors need to be accountable, they need to be required to help patients regardless of moral beliefs. This is real life, not an economic excercise.
-
I am pro choice
... except when it comes to doctors and their choice of religious belief.
Do you not see the hypocrisy of your position?
For the record I am also agnostic.
EDIT: sorry just realised I'm repeating what coblin is saying, albeit much more eloquently *leaves thread to him*
-
I am pro choice
... except when it comes to doctors and their choice of religious belief.
Do you not see the hypocrisy of your position?
For the record I am also agnostic.
EDIT: sorry just realised I'm repeating what coblin is saying, albeit much more eloquently *leaves thread to him*
Being a doctor is a serious job and in no way am I every doctor should be forced to perform abortions. I am not saying doctors aren't allowed religious belief all I'm saying is that doctors need to be held accountable, if they choose to not treat a patient they need to recommend a doctor that will.
-
I'm pretty sure you're underestimating women who want abortions if you think they can't drive out to an abortion clinic, or learn after the first time and give them a call first to enquire.
If you want to reduce them to children so you can make a "think of the children" argument, then by all means, go ahead, but I'll let the community decide how credible the argument is.
About enforcing accountability of advice, however:
How do you enforce that though? How does the patient know when they aren't being given the complete information? If they did they wouldn't need an obestrician in the first place.
Thus, it is important for the patient to shop around and find the right doctors for this. Because the law cannot protect you alone (see my post about moral hazard in my signature), you have to look after yourself. Unless we acknowledge that self-responsibility is the key to most problems, then most problems will remain as the government tries to babysit us forever.
-
You know, if the world was to be made fair, it should be men giving birth not women.
Think about it, if such was the case, we would be more responsible for our actions, and significantly reduce the count of rapes and such. Not to mention that majority of unwanted pregnancies originate from irresponsible men.
I'm not a feminist but I still find it outrageous that women have to face the morality of abortion when they are often not the cause.
-
Being a doctor is a serious job and in no way am I every doctor should be forced to perform abortions.
No, but you are saying they should be forced to give a referral against their religious beliefs. Therefore, you are denying all obstetricians the choice of being Catholic. Can you see how you are simply substituting one denial of freedom of choice for another?
Also, LOL @ men giving birth. YES PLEASE. :P
-
I'm pretty sure you're underestimating women who want abortions if you think they can't drive out to an abortion clinic, or learn after the first time and give them a call first to enquire.
If you want to reduce them to children so you can make a "think of the children" argument, then by all means, go ahead, but I'll let the community decide how credible the argument is.
About enforcing accountability of advice, however:
How do you enforce that though? How does the patient know when they aren't being given the complete information? If they did they wouldn't need an obestrician in the first place.
Thus, it is important for the patient to shop around and find the right doctors for this. Because the law cannot protect you alone (see my post about moral hazard in my signature), you have to look after yourself. Unless we acknowledge that self-responsibility is the key to most problems, then most problems will remain as the government tries to babysit us forever.
What exactly do you think an abortion involves? You are way off it if you think that women calmly make the decision to abort their baby.
You say that women will just learn how to do it after their first time?
It's not like a women thinks oh it's Monday... I think ill go have an abortion.
How naive are you?
Ninwa it's called professionalism, doctors should put the wellbeing of their patients first when they are at work, this does not mean they can't be catholic.
-
Netherlands allows euthanasia.
If a doctor refuses to perform euthanasia due to moral obligation, would you still call it unprofessional? Sometimes it is necessary for professions to allow moralities and such; you cannot always guarantee that the profession's code of conduct is truly moral.
-
It is a cost-benefit analysis between:
Your emotional plea that women who want an abortion will not be able to find one (I am assuming that they are sure already: one that is unsure will seek advice, and there is a boatload of problems associated with getting morally-neutral advice, that I addressed in my quote in my post).
Or,
The loss of capable obestricians who are skilled at giving birth, but feel it is their moral duty to quit their job due to the restrictive and bureaucratic laws. The society faces the loss of a great resource.
-
Euthanasia is another issue, depending on the situation.
I am pro assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.
But that is neither here nor there.
The doctor is not being asked to perfrom an abortion, they are being mandated to a higher level of care.
Coblin I do not think you understand the issue, no doctor is being foreced to perform abortions, they are simply being mandated to providing the name of another doctor that can treat the patient should the have a conflict of interest.
Their are no "restrictive" laws being placed upon obestricians.
-
What exactly do you think an abortion involves? You are way off it if you think that women calmly make the decision to abort their baby.
You say that women will just learn how to do it after their first time?
It's not like a women thinks oh it's Monday... I think ill go have an abortion.
That is so nsulting. Are you suggesting that pregnant women lack the intellectual capacity to make a responsible decision as to which clinics will perform abortions? You realise that finding a clinic which will perform an abortion involves a simple Google search or a flick through the Yellow Pages? Marie Stopes has even started advertising on radio and television now. I understand that making this decision is an emotional and often traumatic experience, but it has never been easier to seek unbiased advice.
As for professionalism:
Obstetrics (from the Latin obstare, "to stand by") is the surgical specialty dealing with the care of women and their children during pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium.
The baby is the doctor's patient too. What about its wellbeing? Catholic doctors would place more importance on the baby's wellbeing rather than the mothers per their beliefs re: sanctity of human life (please correct me if I'm wrong, Catholic VN members). And thus even referring the mother to a doctor who will perform an abortion goes against this.
I tried to post this 4 times but each time "a new reply has been posted" FFS =P
EDIT: I fail at HTML
-
Im sure an abortion is a Google search away.
-
Coblin I do not think you understand the issue, no doctor is being foreced to perform abortions, they are simply being mandated to providing the name of another doctor that can treat the patient should the have a conflict of interest.
Their are no "restrictive" laws being placed upon obestricians.
I perfectly understand that. If you look at my previous posts, note I have talked about both performing abortions and providing recommendations for abortions.
Providing a recommendation is nothing trivial for some moral codes. It is restrictive - let them be.
Im sure an abortion is a Google search away.
And why shouldn't it be? In today's ever growing reliance on the information network, why shouldn't the medical profession have some more innovation? I blame government. People are not resourceful enough, because there is no incentive to do so - the government is great at keeping the resources choked up in traditional avenues by subsidising it over and over. The world has changed, and as usual, government hasn't picked up on it yet.
Today's Web 2.0 world has a lot to offer to medicine.
-
Also, http://www.google.com.au/search?q=abortion
-
Im sure an abortion is a Google search away.
Erm? I don't quite understand?
Of course an abortion itself isn't a Google search away. That's not what I said o.O
finding a clinic which will perform an abortion involves a simple Google search
-
Also, http://www.google.com.au/search?q=abortion
This statement is condescending to the extreme, and redolent of your inability to sympathise with the mental state of a woman with an unwanted baby.
-
The poster is a male, according to the VN profile.
Rather, like ninwa, I respect women enough to believe in their ability to be resourceful, and to seek avenues for help regarding abortions despite the presence of obestricians who do not supply abortions.
-
The doctor is simply recommending a different doctor, they are not recommending someone to do the abortion.
I suggest you read this article. http://mariestopes-px.rtrk.com.au/news/174
A 2004 study looking at the views of 2,500 GPs - General Practitioners: Attitudes to Abortion[1] also found that 84% of GPs support access to abortion services for all women
-
Actually, does anyone know the actual legislation which states that doctors must refer?
The Crimes Act only makes abortion legal, I can't find any other provisions in there.
-
The doctor is simply recommending a different doctor, they are not recommending someone to do the abortion.
Under what conditions must the doctor do this?
If this is the case, I was misinformed. In principle, I would still be against it, but realistically, I understand it would have little effect on the market of doctors (yet little to help the welfare of consumers too). There would still be the possibility of hidden advice regarding an abortion which is unenforceable.
Everything I say about resourceful women and innovation of the medicine industry remain potent solutions to these kinds of dilemmas.
-
The poster is a male, according to the VN profile.
Rather, like ninwa, I respect women enough to believe in their ability to be resourceful, and to seek avenues for help regarding abortions despite the presence of obestricians who do not supply abortions.
But do you sympathise with the fact that many women are not in the correct mental state to make such decisions and hunt down 'correct' avenues, and require the guiding hand of a professional? Do you then consider that given the position of power and trust of the doctor, that he would actually be imposing HIS beliefs on the woman by not offering her a referral to a specialist who will let her consider all avenues?
You are placing too much responsibility on the hypothetical woman who cannot be assumed to be of sound mind, when she is clearly going through so great a trauma as considering an abortion.
-
Relevant legislation can be found here: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/2184e627479f8392ca256da50082bf3e/6DD27AAAAA5956A7CA2574EB00016845/$FILE/08-58a001.pdf
Quote: 8 Obligations of registered health practitioner who
has conscientious objection
(1) If a woman requests a registered health
practitioner to advise on a proposed abortion, or to
perform, direct, authorise or supervise an abortion
for that woman, and the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion, the
practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a
conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health
practitioner in the same regulated health
profession who the practitioner knows does
not have a conscientious objection to
abortion.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a practitioner
who is under a duty set out in subsection (3)
or (4).
(3) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion,
a registered medical practitioner is under a duty to
perform an abortion in an emergency where the
abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the
pregnant woman.
(4) Despite any conscientious objection to abortion,
a registered nurse is under a duty to assist a
registered medical practitioner in performing an
abortion in an emergency where the abortion is
necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant
woman.
__________________
s. 8
-
If this is the case, I was misinformed. In principle, I would still be against it, but realistically, I understand it would have little effect on the market of doctors (yet little to help the welfare of consumers too). There would still be the possibility of hidden advice regarding an abortion which is unenforceable.
I said this 9 months ago. Repetitively. In several posts. No one is being forced to perform an abortion, the only requirement is that you refer on to another physician or medical professional who is able to offer advice/assistance if you are unable to due to moral objections.
-
If this is the case, I was misinformed. In principle, I would still be against it, but realistically, I understand it would have little effect on the market of doctors (yet little to help the welfare of consumers too). There would still be the possibility of hidden advice regarding an abortion which is unenforceable.
I said this 9 months ago. Repetitively. In several posts. No one is being forced to perform an abortion, the only requirement is that you refer on to another physician or medical professional who is able to offer advice/assistance if you are unable to due to moral objections.
I was reading more recent posts and arguing in response to the arguments, not about the legislation. Similarly, I understand a great deal of commerce (the concepts and how to apply them) but not necessarily all the taxation ins and outs (the particular case specifics).
Additionally, such laws are largely unenforceable. I advocate self-reliance, and a medical system that does not remain fixed on archaic traditional means of delivering information - there needs to be room to innovate (using the Web 2.0 environment, as I suggested).
Before you, (and I was writing this and then it went "while you were typing a new reply has been posted...") the only female in this thread reckons females aren't helpless in this situation. Neither does my girlfriend.
-
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
People have the freedom to have or choose a religion or belief, and the freedom to demonstrate their religion or belief. They can do this privately or publicly - at home, at work or in a place of worship - as part of a group or alone. For example, banning the wearing of religious symbols could be a breach of freedom of religion.
I'd just like to add however that I wouldn't be against legislation which makes it mandatory for doctors who are against performing abortions to make that clear to patients before they begin the consultation.
-
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
People have the freedom to have or choose a religion or belief, and the freedom to demonstrate their religion or belief. They can do this privately or publicly - at home, at work or in a place of worship - as part of a group or alone. For example, banning the wearing of religious symbols could be a breach of freedom of religion.
I'd just like to add however that I wouldn't be against legislation which makes it mandatory for doctors who are against performing abortions to make that clear to patients before they begin the consultation.
Me neither. Simple information improving regulations are often a must - infact they are nothing close to the burdensome types of government interference that exist in overregulated industries like medicine. These are just simple anti-fraud measures.
-
Nobody said they were helpless. All that was argued was that they are vulnerable, WHICH THEY ARE, and that they cannot be assumed to be of sound mind, given the potential emotional trauma that they are experiencing.
In a good democracy, the minority sufferer must always be accounted for.
There will be a minority of these women who are helpless, who don't know hwat to do, who don't possess the mental faculty to seek an answer for themselves, who might be swayed by a morally self-righteous doctor imposing their beliefs on them.
This situation must be allowed for. It must be combatted against. The solution to the problem is extremely simple. Refer to a doctor who is not morally compromised by any avenues of choice available to the woman.
-
Nobody said they were helpless. All that was argued was that they are vulnerable, WHICH THEY ARE, and that they cannot be assumed to be of sound mind, given the potential emotional trauma that they are experiencing.
In a good democracy, the minority sufferer must always be accounted for.
There will be a minority of these women who are helpless, who don't know hwat to do, who don't possess the mental faculty to seek an answer for themselves, who might be swayed by a morally self-righteous doctor imposing their beliefs on them.
This situation must be allowed for. It must be combatted against. The solution to the problem is extremely simple. Refer to a doctor who is not morally compromised by any avenues of choice available to the woman.
+1
-
The doctor is simply recommending a different doctor, they are not recommending someone to do the abortion.
Quote: 8 Obligations of registered health practitioner who
has conscientious objection
(1) ... the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.
If the doctor referred to does not have an objection to abortion, surely that's equivalent to recommending someone to do the abortion?
The point about the law being largely unenforceable is also true. Abortion was only recently legalised. Before that, countless abortions were regardless being performed by way of a loophole in the legislation back then. The Victorian Law Reform Commission found that all this achieved was a lessening of the community's faith and trust in the law, since it was pretty much impossible to enforce and was being flouted every day.
There are some things legislation and regulation will not solve.
-
I don't think it's simple:
Quoting myself before:
Additionally, such laws are largely unenforceable. I advocate self-reliance, and a medical system that does not remain fixed on archaic traditional means of delivering information - there needs to be room to innovate (using the Web 2.0 environment, as I suggested).
-
The doctor is simply recommending a different doctor, they are not recommending someone to do the abortion.
Quote: 8 Obligations of registered health practitioner who
has conscientious objection
(1) ... the practitioner must—
(a) inform the woman that the practitioner has a conscientious objection to abortion; and
(b) refer the woman to another registered health practitioner in the same regulated health profession who the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion.
If the doctor referred to does not have an objection to abortion, surely that's equivalent to recommending someone to do the abortion?
That's a ludicrous assumption to make. That doctor might well help the woman in question to realise a method by which they can have the baby. By offering adoption avenues, information on government help etc.
And yes, also the option of terminating.
But they don't KNOW that that's what will happen. The non-morally-compromised doctor will hear the woman's story, just like the morally compromised one did, and advise her on her situation. This does NOT mean an abortion. This means other options.
-
There are some things legislation and regulation will not solve.
Exactly, even the mandatory announcement of religious bias that you proposed (and that I agreed with) is unenforceable. Unfortunately, self-reliance is really the only solution, and hoping that you have a network of friends that can provide helpful experiences and a wealth of knowledge.
-
I don't think it's simple:
Quoting myself before:
Additionally, such laws are largely unenforceable. I advocate self-reliance, and a medical system that does not remain fixed on archaic traditional means of delivering information - there needs to be room to innovate (using the Web 2.0 environment, as I suggested).
The solution itself is simple. The execution of the solution becomes complicated when considering the factors that you stated above.
-
Ninwa it's called professionalism, doctors should put the wellbeing of their patients first when they are at work, this does not mean they can't be catholic.
You never answered my point on this.
As for professionalism:
Obstetrics (from the Latin obstare, "to stand by") is the surgical specialty dealing with the care of women and their children during pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium.
The baby is the doctor's patient too. What about its wellbeing? Catholic doctors would place more importance on the baby's wellbeing rather than the mothers per their beliefs re: sanctity of human life (please correct me if I'm wrong, Catholic VN members). And thus even referring the mother to a doctor who will perform an abortion goes against this.
-
That doctor might well help the woman in question to realise a method by which they can have the baby. By offering adoption avenues, information on government help etc.
And why wouldn't a Catholic doctor against abortion - i.e. FOR having the baby - also go through those options?
The only extra option a doctor without the "conscientious objection" could provide is abortion.
-
There are some things legislation and regulation will not solve.
Exactly, even the mandatory announcement of religious bias that you proposed (and that I agreed with) is unenforceable. Unfortunately, self-reliance is really the only solution, and hoping that you have a network of friends that can provide helpful experiences and a wealth of knowledge.
Well you can choose to hope that this woman has friends wiht her best interests at heart. For all you know, she might have a dropkick boyfriend who wants her to have the baby so he can get the baby bonus. For all you know, her friends don't know shit and only worsen her situation by passing judgment.
That's a pretty questionable hope to impose on every single woman with an unwanted pregnancy. How can you forsake a woman like that? Self-reliance cannot be assumed where soundness of mind is questionable.
-
That doctor might well help the woman in question to realise a method by which they can have the baby. By offering adoption avenues, information on government help etc.
And why wouldn't a Catholic doctor against abortion - i.e. FOR having the baby - also go through those options?
EDIT: oops, double negative =_=
I never said he wouldn't...
-
The only exception in the sinfulness of the abortion procedure is, if my memory serves me right, when the mother's life in danger physically.
Catholics believe that:
1. Accidental pregnancy could have been prevented by strictly adhering to "No Sex Before Marriage"
2. In cases of rape, a women is left with scars after abortion, cure comes when she has the child. This has been shown in some real life testimonials.
3. All in all, a crime (ie. rape) does not justify a "murder".
However, one must be aware that Catholics view of abortion is constantly under review. According to the original canon, ANY abortion is considered sinful but views have changed since.
To answer your question about referral, such acts are considered to be "assisting" in abortion. This means that a doctor who refers the woman is considered nearly as guilty as another who performs the procedure.
-
The medical system needs to be regulated, by legislating this requirement for doctors that have moral objections it ensures that the patient is able to still make the choice. Without this regulation certain patients maybe told no by the doctor and offered no further advice, if the patient is already vulnerable this situation would apply further pressure and could lead to other problems for the patient ie, depression.
-
I never said he wouldn't...
So why is it a ludicrous assumption that referring to a doctor without a conscientious objection to abortion is equivalent to referring them to someone who will perform an abortion? Since the only extra option which the Catholic doctor cannot provide is abortion?
-
In case people missed this, I will post it up again:
Thats very naive suggesting that doctors only perform abortions because it is "high paying"
I am sure that there are doctors who perform abortion for many other reasons than the pay.
I think you misinterpreted me: I meant that there are many non-Catholic doctors available for the procedure.
With the abortion case, I would like to straighten out some of my beliefs:
1. Women should be allowed to choose to undergo abortion LEGALLY and SAFELY
2. Although I oppose abortion where the conception could have been prevented (ie. the child was conceived of consensual relationship between two adults), I believe that this is a matter between the couple and especially the woman, since she is the one having the baby. After all, no matter how much us men say we empathise with the pains and aftermath of a child-birth, we will never really understand it. As a man, I understand that my understanding of pregnancy, stress of abortions is, and will always be, limited
3. Abortions are generally seriously thought about and 99% time, not a trivial decision by the potential mother
4. In some situations, the father escapes responsibility, and in the others, the mother cannot guarantee 100% support from the father for the next 18 years. For woman, it becomes obligation once the baby's born, for men, it is slightly more obligating than free will.
5. Giving up the child for adoption can be a painful process, especially for the mother, especially after all the labour and 10 months bonding she had with the child. Where she is in no position to be able to bring up the child, she will be emotionally scarred for life.
6. Therefore, the woman should always be given the final decision.
With forcing Catholic doctors to perform abortion:
1. Women have access to many doctors who are willing to conduct the abortion procedure who are not Catholic
2. Many Catholic doctors become obstericians to deliver babies which is considered a holy process
3. Abortion procedure is NOT the main role of an obsterician
4. Women would receive far better treatment, both emotionally and physically, from a willing doctor. Unwilling Catholic doctors are more likely to make them feel more guilty about the procedure and far less likely to reassure them about their rights as a woman
5. Many women who are considering abortion become emotionally unstable and a strong emotional support is needed from everyone, including the doctor, in order to not psychologically scar them for life.
Catholic doctors reaction:
1. Many doctors would be psychologically scarred due to having betrayed their religious doctrine
2. Many doctors are likely to quit, resulting in less obstetricians, which would mean less available doctors to meet women's other needs (eg. childbirth) or replacement with second-rate doctors
Political reaction:
1. This new legislation will be opposed heavily by the Catholic Church
2. Potential high-profile legal case, which would cost tax payers a lot of money which could have been spent better elsewhere
3. Since Catholic voters form a large percentage of the Australian population, the Government would need to do something in order them to recoup their general support
4. The Government will be forced to openly condemn the Church, which would lead to discrimination of Catholics in general, and may earn the Church antagonism from women's rights groups
5. Many who do not understand the Church will be quick to follow suit and this may create a wave of hatred towards the religion, leading to discrimination
As somebody have mentioned earlier, even the act of referral is a sin in the Catholic doctrine. For proof, we can see how Pontius Pilate is still condemned for Jesus's crucifixion even though he clearly stated that he does not endorse it.
But of course, now that we have legalised abortion, it would only be logical for the government to force the Catholic doctors to refer the patients to someone who will perform the procedure since after all, we want to ensure best support for the expectant women, right?
Well, the following are my thoughts:
1. Instead of forcing Catholic doctors to refer, they are better off having mandatory pregnancy advisors in every major hospital. Costs too much? If they can throw away millions of dollars for a useless internet censorship program, and potential millions more as they prepare to battle against Catholic Church, they can afford this. Also, this would increase jobs, and be an efficient way of stimulating the economy.
2. Catholics doctors oppose abortion. What convinces the government to think that such doctors would know many good aborting doctors? If they are just going to refer them to some other random doctor, the woman could have just done the same thing by visiting major clinics with non-Catholic doctors.
In conclusion, the Government should know where to draw the fine line between supporting women's rights and invading the freedom of others. Both can co-exist, and the Government, and some members of VCE Notes, should not pretend that the Catholics are in some where violating women's rights.
-
I never said he wouldn't...
So why is it a ludicrous assumption that referring to a doctor without a conscientious objection to abortion is equivalent to referring them to someone who will perform an abortion? Since the only extra option which the Catholic doctor cannot provide is abortion?
Because in the case of the doctor, she's not offered the alternative of terminating the baby. In such a consultation it would be discussed. Only by airing that alternative in the open can it be shot down or picked up. Discussing abortion, how it works, what it means etc. may well influence the woman to not have it. Had you considered that option? But, of course, the religious doctor cannot even entertain such a discussion.
-
I'm going to go a bit off-topic, but it is relevant to the trust and position of power of a doctor.
People really need to think for themselves. Please have a read of my story about moral hazard (in my signature). Think like my mum, who would question the way the meat she bought was handled - even though it was legal! We can't assume the government is going to, or can protect us in each and every situation.
And having one doctor that you trust is placing a monopoly on your life. It's as stupid as trusting the government to put laws in place to protect you from your own stupidity. One has to tread their own path in life, and cannot take for granted the quality of care that you receive from your doctor, your government, or even your parents (as we all have come to figure out in our teenage years, probably).
But there's too much to look out for, not enough time to know everything about everything - that's the imperfect world for you - but there are entrepreneurs out there toiling for your attention, trying to make the world an easier place for you. By making information more potent and accurate, they will make the world an easier place to live in. This is the kind of world we should understand we live in.
-
Collin, you never even RESPONDED to my point about soundness of mind.
You read it, yet you chose to ignore it.
Your inability to sympathise with people in compromised mental states is quite saddening. How can you honestly have compared your mum buying meat to a girl with an unwanted pregnancy?
How can you assume clear mental faculties of a girl experiencing an emotional trauma? A certain burden of responsibility, here, lies with the carer. The doctor.
-
Collin, you never even RESPONDED to my point about soundness of mind.
You read it, yet you chose to ignore it.
How can you assume clear mental faculties of a girl experiencing an emotional trauma? The burden of responsibility, here, lies with the carer. The doctor.
I said the government cannot possibly improve on the situation. You can state imperfections as much as you like - but there is no practical government solution for it.
-
Doctors are trusted by society and for a vulnerable women that has become pregnant unexpectedly, their doctor can be essential to both their mental and physical health.
-
Collin, read my edited post.
-
I never said he wouldn't...
So why is it a ludicrous assumption that referring to a doctor without a conscientious objection to abortion is equivalent to referring them to someone who will perform an abortion? Since the only extra option which the Catholic doctor cannot provide is abortion?
Because in the case of the doctor, she's not offered the alternative of terminating the baby. In such a consultation it would be discussed. Only by airing that alternative in the open can it be shot down or picked up. Discussing abortion, how it works, what it means etc. may well influence the woman to not have it. Had you considered that option? But, of course, the religious doctor cannot even entertain such a discussion.
Although this is extreme example, place yourself in a Catholic doctor's shoes.
Imagine you were a soldier and was given an order to:
1. kill an innocent child
2. send the child to your comrade who has no conscience against killing the child
How would you feel? Wouldn't you feel guilty either way?
Don't say that Catholics are wrong, or immoral or whatever. The majority opinion of the public are often not the moral options.
Remember:
1. Australians used to kill Aboriginal Australians for hunting purposes
2. Americans killed American Indians for sport
-
Collin, read my edited post.
I did. My 'off-topic' post was not what I expect people to be, but a symbol of what to aspire to be. Because I believe the government can have no real effect on this problem, my post is a manifesto of what individuals need to acknowledge in an uncertain world.
-
I never said he wouldn't...
So why is it a ludicrous assumption that referring to a doctor without a conscientious objection to abortion is equivalent to referring them to someone who will perform an abortion? Since the only extra option which the Catholic doctor cannot provide is abortion?
Because in the case of the doctor, she's not offered the alternative of terminating the baby. In such a consultation it would be discussed. Only by airing that alternative in the open can it be shot down or picked up. Discussing abortion, how it works, what it means etc. may well influence the woman to not have it. Had you considered that option? But, of course, the religious doctor cannot even entertain such a discussion.
Although this is extreme example, place yourself in a Catholic doctor's shoes.
Imagine you were a soldier and was given an order to:
1. kill an innocent child
2. send the child to your comrade who has no conscience against killing the child
How would you feel? Wouldn't you feel guilty either way?
Don't say that Catholics are wrong, or immoral or whatever. The majority opinion of the public are often not the moral options.
Remember:
1. Australians used to kill Aboriginal Australians for hunting purposes
2. Americans killed American Indians for sport
It is a ridiculous to suggest that requiring doctors that oppose abortion to refer their patient to another doctor is any where near the same as the injustices suffered by indigenous Australians
-
And I would say that in an ideal world, a doctor would respect the law and follow it to the letter. Ideally, it can have an effect on the problem, my posts are a manifesto of what government needs to do to ensure that it has set out a proper guideline of what to do. And then, afterward, to perhaps seek out more enforceable alternatives.
-
The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.
-
I never said he wouldn't...
So why is it a ludicrous assumption that referring to a doctor without a conscientious objection to abortion is equivalent to referring them to someone who will perform an abortion? Since the only extra option which the Catholic doctor cannot provide is abortion?
Because in the case of the doctor, she's not offered the alternative of terminating the baby. In such a consultation it would be discussed. Only by airing that alternative in the open can it be shot down or picked up. Discussing abortion, how it works, what it means etc. may well influence the woman to not have it. Had you considered that option? But, of course, the religious doctor cannot even entertain such a discussion.
Although this is extreme example, place yourself in a Catholic doctor's shoes.
Imagine you were a soldier and was given an order to:
1. kill an innocent child
2. send the child to your comrade who has no conscience against killing the child
How would you feel? Wouldn't you feel guilty either way?
Don't say that Catholics are wrong, or immoral or whatever. The majority opinion of the public are often not the moral options.
Remember:
1. Australians used to kill Aboriginal Australians for hunting purposes
2. Americans killed American Indians for sport
It is a ridiculous to suggest that requiring doctors that oppose abortion to refer their patient to another doctor is any where near the same as the injustices suffered by indigenous Australians
They are same in the way that they were both once acceptable behaviours. Of course, killing aboriginals were outrageous. Also, I am not trying to convince anybody that abortion is bad. My point is that in a Catholic doctor's point of view, they feel that they need to adhere to the doctrine rather than the unreliable public opinion and laws.
-
So catholics believe they are above the law?
-
And I would say that in an ideal world, a doctor would respect the law and follow it to the letter. Ideally, it can have an effect on the problem, my posts are a manifesto of what government needs to do to ensure that it has set out a proper guideline of what to do. And then, afterward, to perhaps seek out more enforceable alternatives.
Not an ideal world. Laws have proven to be unreliable. History has shown us laws which legalised slavery and genocide.
-
The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.
Then why have a police force?
-
And I would say that in an ideal world, a doctor would respect the law and follow it to the letter. Ideally, it can have an effect on the problem, my posts are a manifesto of what government needs to do to ensure that it has set out a proper guideline of what to do. And then, afterward, to perhaps seek out more enforceable alternatives.
Not an ideal world. Laws have proven to be unreliable. History has shown us laws which legalised slavery and genocide.
Yes, in an ideal world, these laws ensure maximum protection of human rights. That is what I meant by ideal world.
-
So catholics believe they are above the law?
We don't believe we are "above" the law. We believe that the law is unreliable, not always entirely moral, and that the only law to follow is the Law of God, which we believe has been translated into Catholic doctrine.
-
The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.
Then why have a police force?
I think coblin's point is that conformity is not always the right option.
-
The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.
Then why have a police force?
Because it is observable whether they are doing their job or not. Sound information is not observable - and hence moral hazard exists.
-
So catholics believe they are above the law?
We don't believe we are "above" the law. We believe that the law is unreliable, not always entirely moral, and that the only law to follow is the Law of God, which we believe has been translated into Catholic doctrine.
This is why there is no such thing as separation of church and state...
-
The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.
Then why have a police force?
Because it is observable whether they are doing their job or not. Sound information is not - and hence moral hazard exists.
Ahem? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many cases emerge of corruption having occurred for 10s of years before being uncovered LONG after these policemen leave the job?
Get off your high horse. Just as doctors are, these policemen are in a position of power, and are able to find ways to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW and abuse it. Just because the laws are circumventable doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
-
So catholics believe they are above the law?
We don't believe we are "above" the law. We believe that the law is unreliable, not always entirely moral, and that the only law to follow is the Law of God, which we believe has been translated into Catholic doctrine.
This is why there is no such thing as separation of church and state...
I think other people from other religions think similar things. I think you are rather being harsh on Catholics. Catholics does not force non-Catholics to not perform abortions, we try to convince them, and the doctors just avoid assisting in the "sin".
-
My points were about relying on people and information, if you read my post. Not about tangible and easily observable (i.e.: enforceable) things.
Otherwise we would be too paranoid, and we'd mine our own iron, oil and coal, burn our own, and run our own generators, and learn all these skills for ourselves (rather than specialise, which is what economists preach - information economics is a new and innovative branch of economics that deals with these unobservables).
-
The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.
Then why have a police force?
Because it is observable whether they are doing their job or not. Sound information is not - and hence moral hazard exists.
Ahem? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many cases emerge of corruption having occurred for 10s of years before being uncovered LONG after these policemen leave the job?
Get off your high horse. Just as doctors are, these policemen are in a position of power, and are able to find ways to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW and abuse it. Just because the laws are circumventable doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.
No admin, you are wrong. The reason police is good is because it is better than having none, and a better situation is unattainable.
-
And I didn't say "don't have doctors", because they can't always give sound advice. I said less reliance. Similarly, no one leaves their doors unlocked, because they cannot rely on total law and order to be kept by the police.
And yes, the cost-benefit analysis, as rhjc.1991 pointed out, also comes into it.
-
My points were about relying on people and information, if you read my post. Not about tangible and easily observable (i.e.: enforceable) things.
Otherwise we would be too paranoid, and we'd mine our own iron, oil and coal, burn our own, and run our own generators, and learn all these skills for ourselves (rather than specialise, which is what economists preach - information economics is a new and innovative branch of economics that deals with these unobservables).
Please clarify the point in your first sentence.
-
I still believe that the best solution is to have legislation making it mandatory for such Catholic clinics/hospitals/whatever to clearly specify to the patient BEFORE the consultation that this is their position, so that the woman can make an informed decision as to whether to proceed with the consultation.
That way, both parties have their freedom of choice.
-
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,6047.msg162211.html#msg162211
-
And I didn't say "don't have doctors", because they can't always give sound advice. I said less reliance. Similarly, no one leaves their doors unlocked, because they cannot rely on total law and order to be kept by the police.
And yes, the cost-benefit analysis, as rhjc.1991 pointed out, also comes into it.
Ah, but you did say don't have these laws. So why have laws requiring policemen to not abuse their power when you can't have total reliance on such laws working?
It is the same idea in effect here, that legislating for referral is the ideal scenario, just as legislating for policemen to be honest is the ideal scenario.
-
Accountability. Making sure patients don't fall through the gaps.
-
Firstly, you didn't say that. You said, get rid of police (not get rid of police corruption laws).
Secondly, the chain is different:
* If the doctor lies, it is your loss.
* If the policeman lies, it is the country coffer's loss. You are a tiny proportion of the country coffers. So hence, it makes sense to pay much more attention to the corruption of criminals through the legal process, because the self-regulation process cannot fix it (because it does not care as much).
-
Firstly, you didn't say that. You said, get rid of police (not get rid of police corruption laws).
Secondly, the chain is different:
* If the doctor lies, it is your loss.
* If the policeman lies, it is the country coffer's loss. You are a tiny proportion of the country coffers. So hence, it makes sense to pay much more attention to the corruption of criminals through the legal process, because the self-regulation process cannot fix it (because it does not care as much).
Doctors also cost money so if a doctor lies then they are not performing their job and are wasting taxpayers money
-
Firstly, you didn't say that. You said, get rid of police (not get rid of police corruption laws).
Secondly, the chain is different:
* If the doctor lies, it is your loss.
* If the policeman lies, it is the country coffer's loss. You are a tiny proportion of the country coffers. So hence, it makes sense to pay much more attention to the corruption of criminals through the legal process, because the self-regulation process cannot fix it (because it does not care as much).
Wow, so fuck the minority sufferer, eh?
Nice democracy you've got going there, Kim-Jong.
-
What do you mean? How did you draw such a conclusion? If it is your loss, then it is in your interest to seek new information.
Hence, the doctor situation is self-regulating, and the police situation is not.
-
If minorities getting fucked over isn't accounted for in the legislature, then that is a failure in a democracy. Simple as that.
-
These 'minorities' have an interest to look out for themselves (private costs resemble social costs), while in the police situation, corruption laws are necessary because private costs do not resemble social costs - no individual has the interest to look out for public funds that they own a tiny proportion of.
Use numbers to imagine why this works:
People self-regulate about medicine and can protect themselves by 100 (some unit of protection).
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
1% increase in protection at some cost.
People don't care about public coffers being plunged due to 'split-the-bill' problem, the self-regulation is minimal: 1
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
100% increase in protection at some cost.
It is easy to see why the benefits outweigh the costs in the police situation, and not the doctor situation.
-
Argh, this isn't economic. I know it's a far out concept, but some things do not involve economics.
"The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the 'tyranny of the majority'."
Is what democracy is all about. No, minorities should NOT be left to their own devices when they have been wronged by an external party.
-
These 'minorities' have an interest to look out for themselves (private costs resemble social costs), while in the police situation, corruption laws are necessary because private costs do not resemble social costs - no individual has the interest to look out for public funds that they own a tiny proportion of.
Use numbers to imagine why this works:
People self-regulate about medicine and can protect themselves by 100 (some unit of protection).
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
1% increase in protection at some cost.
People don't care about public coffers being plunged due to 'split-the-bill' problem, the self-regulation is minimal: 1
Unenforceable legislation improves it by 1.
100% increase in protection at some cost.
It is easy to see why the benefits outweigh the costs in the police situation, and not the doctor situation.
The cost of protecting the minority is borne by democratic society and should not be a factor when deciding to protect the minority.
-
So you would accept legislation that would have near-zero effectiveness, but extremely high costs, just to cover the protection of minorities a bit more? Don't you think the market system would do a far better job? (i.e.: some consultant that wants your attention and offers great advice and help to those seeking it)
And I'm well aware of the tyranny of the majority. I've never condoned it, it's a straw-man to suggest I'm a part of such a scheme.
-
But this legislation does not have extremely high costs.
And, no, I would not trust an unregulated market consultant. The service could be available to those who wish to seek it out, sure, but I would not endorse it in lieu of government intervention.
-
But the ratio of effectiveness to cost is a waste of money. You can seek better returns elsewhere with the money.
It would be a sin against efficiency (which means less resources to more needy avenues, less conservation of resources) to do so.
-
And I'm well aware of the tyranny of the majority. I've never condoned it, it's a straw-man to suggest I'm a part of such a scheme.
No it isn't, you JUST made an argument about the needs of the few being irrelevant to government.
JUST then.
-
But the ratio of effectiveness to cost is a waste of money. You can seek better returns elsewhere with the money.
It would be a sin against efficiency (which means less resources to more needy avenues, less conservation of resources) to do so.
But if it's a market consultant, then it would be out of that person's coffers. And then it would be the government saying "You're on your own", basically.
-
No, I was talking about how an individual would only feel a proportion of the loss in the case of police corruption - there was nothing said about ignoring the needs of few. But I am talking about efficiency, and getting the most you can with money.
So while a majority tyrant might advocate the same policy, it comes from different principles. One is morally questionable and arbitrary, the other is morally sound and pragmatic. They coincide by coincidence.
Re: market consultant. I wasn't talking about that - I'm talking about a whole host of other information improving legislations that offer better return on other social needs. But that could include providing medicine vouchers (for these kind of services).
-
BTW, I am only debating an abstraction with you - about police corruption laws versus doctor information laws. If you noticed when cardiovascular pointed out the particulars of the legislation, that I backed down, stating that the costs and benefits are minimal - and would think it trivial and pragmatic for political purposes to accept it. I would quote it but I am capped.
My advocacy of self-reliance was offered as a must-have, regardless of the passing of the unenforceable legislation regarding the doctor. That is, in any case, you should seek self-responsibility, because that is really your best hope at guaranteeing sound advice for yourself. (Moral hazard #2 in my signature)
-
I agree with you that self-reliance is ideal, however it cannot be assumed in situations where soundness of mind is known to be compromised. As it cannot be assumed, there must be precautions and safeguards put in place by the government to ensure that no harm comes to these people.
There are numerous laws with deal with this exact concept. I think this notion applies here.
-
Rule of Coblin:
Any debate with coblin in it must eventually turn to economics. :P
I have now realised that it is a more complex issue than I originally envisaged. The doctor entered into this profession knowing what was in store and taking a (legally-recognised) duty of care. The woman has been placed into the position unwillingly the majority of the time. The doctor is legally and morally in a position of power and trust. It is not a simple issue of freedom of choice. In certain circumstances, the patient's rights override those of the doctor's.
So my position is now neutral and I won't contribute to this debate anymore (but will watch with interest!)
-
I agree with you that self-reliance is ideal, however it cannot be assumed in situations where soundness of mind is known to be compromised. As it cannot be assumed, there must be precautions and safeguards put in place by the government to ensure that no harm comes to these people.
There are numerous laws with deal with this exact concept. I think this notion applies here.
I agree with coblin's idea of self-reliance for a number of reasons:
1. You cannot guarantee that the government will be correct. Many will remember many racist laws (eg. "Two Wongs don't make a White") of the government, and recently of the Stolen Generation.
2. Even if in an idealistic government, you cannot expect them to enforce their ideas
Self-reliance is important, because dissent is important in order to ensure that our society functions in a proper manner.
-
Whoa this thing has blown up hasn't it.
There are legislative requirements for vaccination and the medical practioners board was built upon by an act of parliament. http://medicalboardvic.org.au/content.php?sec=140
There is a need for doctor to be accountable and that isn't discrimination. The governement should not need to make one set of rules for each religion.
The legislation will not force any doctor to perform an abortion, it simply requires doctors to be accountable and if they have a problem with abortion ie because of religious belief, they must refer to patient to another doctor.
There is no legislative (as in an Act of Parliament) requirement for a doctor to perform a vaccination (for whatever reason). There is an incentive scheme for GPs to vaccinate their patients but I'm sure everyone here knows the differences between an incentive and a requirement.
Look, as I've mentioned before I'd argue against the current legislation (although not necessarily the legalisation of abortion itself) on the basis of redundancy. As I mentioned earlier we do have a Medical Practitioner's Board. If there is an adverse result as a result of advice given by a doctor, it can be referred to there. It could, I'd imagine, be even taken to court (although ask ninwa about that one). There's no need for an additional, inflexible, Act of Parliament about this.
-
If there is an adverse result as a result of advice given by a doctor, it can be referred to there. It could, I'd imagine, be even taken to court
Yes, I believe it would prima facie form an action in negligence. However, the tort of negligence is incredibly complex and difficult to prove. Most lawyers would prefer another cause of action if possible. In this sense, then, legislation in this area MAY be useful, as it is a lot easier to sue on for breach of statutory duty rather than negligence.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a statue of limitations on suing in negligence - so after the 6 years (or whatever the time limit is), the patient would have no recourse (in law anyway - not sure about time limits on the Medical Practitioners Board thing).
I do still believe this legislation is a rather ineffective one, but can't really think of any better options.
-
If there is an adverse result as a result of advice given by a doctor, it can be referred to there. It could, I'd imagine, be even taken to court
Yes, I believe it would prima facie form an action in negligence. However, the tort of negligence is incredibly complex and difficult to prove. Most lawyers would prefer another cause of action if possible. In this sense, then, legislation in this area MAY be useful, as it is a lot easier to sue on for breach of statutory duty rather than negligence.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a statue of limitations on suing in negligence - so after the 6 years (or whatever the time limit is), the patient would have no recourse (in law anyway - not sure about time limits on the Medical Practitioners Board thing).
I do still believe this legislation is a rather ineffective one, but can't really think of any better options.
The MPB doesn't have a time limit (although it acknowledges that "memory and recall fade over time" and that "doctors are only required to hold their patient records for seven years after the last consultation").
It could be the case though, that doctors (or their insurers) would choose to settle, rather than being dragged into court.