Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[excal]

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.

[jess3254]

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.

[ninwa]

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

[excal]

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).

[costargh]

fuck catholics
/end rant

[excal]

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

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.

[jess3254]

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!

[excal]

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).

[jess3254]

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...

[excal]

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).

[costargh]

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.

[mystikal]

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  

[excal]

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.

[jess3254]

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

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.

[ninwa]

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.