Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[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).

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

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.

[Noblesse]

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 ) 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.

[jess3254]

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.

[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.

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 ...)

[brendan]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[excal]

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

[Collin Li]

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.

[Eriny]

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'.

[excal]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[Collin Li]

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?

[costargh]

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.

[Collin Li]

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).