Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[bubble sunglasses]

  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.

[brendan]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

...

[Collin Li]

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.

[brendan]

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."

[ninwa]

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.

....... 

[enwiabe]

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.

[brendan]

Yes, no one has any right to force others to serve them. Doing so is nothing short of slavery.

[brendan]

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?

[enwiabe]

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...

[enwiabe]

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.

[cara.mel]

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?