Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[costargh]

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.

[excal]

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).

[bubble sunglasses]

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

[costargh]

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.

[excal]

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.

[BA22]

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

[enwiabe]

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

[excal]

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).

[excal]

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 -_-

[enwiabe]

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 -_-

[enwiabe]

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 -_-

[jess3254]

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.

[enwiabe]

"Dude, honestly" indeed.

Excal, you really need to learn to get off the moral high horse sometimes >_>

[excal]

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.

[ninwa]

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 ...