Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[costargh]

Jess and Costa hereby choose to refrain from posting in this thread citing academic reasons.
16/10/08

[Glockmeister]

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.

[Mao]

your point is?

[and how is that condescending?]

[jess3254]

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 I had a study break... haha

[Collin Li]

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.

[jess3254]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[Glockmeister]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[Eriny]

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.

[Noblesse]

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

[brendan]

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...

[costargh]

Most professions that require higher qualifications are regulated. Eg. Plumbing

[bubble sunglasses]

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.

[Collin Li]

Yeah, but doctors aren't state-employed - thank god.

There is a degree of choice with Medicare.