Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[brendan]

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.

Preferring free markets over central planning does not require you to assume that all individuals are 100% rational 100% of the time.

[brendan]

In the end, I simply follow people's train of thought and show that their train can lead them to some pretty ugly places.

[Eriny]

Anyway, here is my actual position (after a page of 'technical debate'):

I am in agreement with Eriny's belief in self-regulation. I actually think there is no harm in accepting a similar principle (replace 'medical industry' with 'autonomous abortion clinics'), because if you don't like it, you can just quit. The clinics aren't setting such regulation because they all share that moral position though. The only reason why such self-regulation would prop up is because it shares the common values of its consumers, who they must ultimately satisfy. Hence, it is an accountable system - clinics who have abhorrent practices (i.e.: practices that do not serve the consumer) will have to put up with consumer demand, or shut down. On the other hand - a law imposed by non-participants of this transaction may actually distort the otherwise left-free regulations (i.e: those in line with consumer preferences), and the government should simply stay out of this business.

Pro-choice is the freedom to choose if you want an abortion. It's not the entitlement to an abortion, and it's not the entitlement to other people's knowledge about abortions.

Hey, I think I agree with that. Wow.

I'm not actually sure what's wrong with the apparent 'logical' ramifications of what I argued before. I suppose if the medical industry did put in legislation that in order to be a doctor you'd have to rape your mother, or something disgusting like that, you could either choose not to be a doctor or decide to lobby against it (they could form a union!), but ultimately it would be up to the medical industry to change. Or, their ridiculousness in the public eye would render them obsolete and some other more reasonable professional body would spring up. It would never happen because of the 'first do no harm' principle which is integral to medicine, but ultimately, yes, by choosing to be a doctor, you may be choosing also to rape your mother (wow, I hope that's never quoted out of context). As long as you know where your choice will lead you before you sign up, it may be morally reprehensible, but could still possibly be expected of you.

In any case, though, enwiabe is quite right in saying that the N's and M's and so on are important. These issues are not necessarily black-and-white. The problem is, it's difficult to incorporate greyness in overall governing principles.

[sxcalexc]

I have no problem with people having personal faith. However, Religion as an organisation, is outdated. The general populace does not need religion to be regulated now that we have a sophisticated legal system. Honestly, religion is only impeding on the opportunities we have to progress as a society. It is still the leading cause of all wars, there are still priests raping children and there are still anti-abortion and anti-IVF protesters clogging our media. The more we develop in the area of science and gene research, the more these people are likely to interfere.

[Mao]

LOL

what a mad read.
arguing about types of arguments is awesome! lol.
i really liked enwiabe's rebuttal. made sense to me.

I propose that we now move away from this argument that is moving further and further away from the topic and go back to the root of the discussion. Sorry to sound hypocritical even if I started it with me "advice" and "referral" distinction.

that reminds me of [from the xkcd blag]

...
So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.
...

[excal]

LOL

what a mad read.
arguing about types of arguments is awesome! lol.
i really liked enwiabe's rebuttal. made sense to me.

I propose that we now move away from this argument that is moving further and further away from the topic and go back to the root of the discussion. Sorry to sound hypocritical even if I started it with me "advice" and "referral" distinction.

that reminds me of [from the xkcd blag]

...
So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels. Of course, this being the internet, there’s also a #4 crowd loudly arguing that even if the plane was able to move, it couldn’t have been what hit the Pentagon.
...

Yeah, the original debate was whether it is right for the government to force doctors to refer patients onto other doctors should they have a conscientious objection to abortion (which I think is an abhorrent rejection of the idea of free speech, in the name of 'patient rights').

The patient's right is to find another doctor on their own accord...they're not locked into the conscientiously objecting doctor.

[jess3254]

The patient's right is to find another doctor on their own accord...they're not locked into the conscientiously objecting doctor.

That's a very simplistic and somewhat unrealistic conclusion for you to come to.
It's just not that easy. As BA22 said, there is a power imbalance between the doctor and patient. Some doctors can be very convincing and powerful bullies. They can intimidate their patients from seeking a second opinion, especially if they have strong beliefs about what the right thing to do is.

Me and my parents have experienced this several times. Doctors have said stuff like:
-"I'm NEVER WRONG! I see that as a personal insult if you seek a second opinion. The hospital pays me a lot of money to do what I do." (A neurologist at the royal children's hospital)

-"If you go and see that doctor at that hospital, don't ever expect to step back inside this hospital again." (My cardiologist)

-One doctor rang up my dad and said, "How dare you even consider getting a second opinion. If you do, I will never see you as a patient again. And think about it; I can easily have an influence on what your reputation is as a doctor." (This was my dad's gastroenterologist) 

So yeah. It can be really difficult to then seek a second opinion when you have essentially been threatened. You'd be surprised how often it happens. All my friends with cystic fibrosis have had very similar experiences. And, you've got to realise that it's difficult to seek a second opinion in the first place. It's hard to just go and find another doctor, especially when you are in such an awful situation.

When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice! And, Medicine is a career which requires you to be fairly level headed and balanced.

[jess3254]

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.)

[bubble sunglasses]

 

 Also, the doctors don't have an inalienable right to employment.

[excal]

The patient's right is to find another doctor on their own accord...they're not locked into the conscientiously objecting doctor.

That's a very simplistic and somewhat unrealistic conclusion for you to come to.
It's just not that easy. As BA22 said, there is a power imbalance between the doctor and patient. Some doctors can be very convincing and powerful bullies. They can intimidate their patients from seeking a second opinion, especially if they have strong beliefs about what the right thing to do is.

Me and my parents have experienced this several times. Doctors have said stuff like:
-"I'm NEVER WRONG! I see that as a personal insult if you seek a second opinion. The hospital pays me a lot of money to do what I do." (A neurologist at the royal children's hospital)

-"If you go and see that doctor at that hospital, don't ever expect to step back inside this hospital again." (My cardiologist)

-One doctor rang up my dad and said, "How dare you even consider getting a second opinion. If you do, I will never see you as a patient again. And think about it; I can easily have an influence on what your reputation is as a doctor." (This was my dad's gastroenterologist) 

So yeah. It can be really difficult to then seek a second opinion when you have essentially been threatened. You'd be surprised how often it happens. All my friends with cystic fibrosis have had very similar experiences. And, you've got to realise that it's difficult to seek a second opinion in the first place. It's hard to just go and find another doctor, especially when you are in such an awful situation.

When you are registered as a doctor, you agree to work by a code of practice. No one is being forced to work in an industry which requires you to refer patients if you are unable to treat or give advice on a particular problem yourself. If you don't like it, don't practice! And, Medicine is a career which requires you to be fairly level headed and balanced.

Sure, that's fine.

However, it's not the government's job to do that. It should be the industry's (cf. AMA) responsibility to determine what is right - not some suits who only have a cursory understanding of medical practice.

If the industry wishes to impose the responsibility of referral on doctors by codes or custom, they may do so. Taking it a step further and legislating for it is simply going too far.

[excal]

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?

[ninwa]

How can you compare drug/substance abuse to unwanted pregnancy?

[BA22]

Because it suits the arguement he's making

As far as most people i've talked to in the medical profession are concerned, nothing has really changed

[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.

[BA22]

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