Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[enwiabe]

No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid. You're now hanging onto vary shaky threads of your old shell of an argument that you've since completely abandoned.

I have nothing more to say to you except that this is very reminiscent of the Khalid thread and other arguments where you've done this moral high-horse bullshit. It is quite pathetic, really.

[excal]

So what about emotionally unstable women seeking abortion? Now the doctor can't take his safety as a higher priority.

What's not to say that said female does not fall in the above category (of 'rational, sane people')?

Obviously if the woman was being physically abusive, s/he could refuse to see her or call the police... But this is just completely irrelevant to your original argument, which is "doctors should not have to refer patients if they have a moral objection to abortion" not whether a doctor has a right to refuse to see a patient who's being physically abusive...
This argument is about the doctor's MORALS, not his/her safety

Some people took my example of substance abusers a little too much to heart and more or less derailed the argument. Perhaps it wasn't the best example.

Your argument started off as, "Doctors shouldn't have to perform or be involved in the abortion process if they have a moral objection to it, it impinges on their rights to free speech" (even though they're not forced into anything).

Yes, they are. They have to refer now. The Act is fairly black and white on this one.

--> To "The government shouldn't impose these values, it should be the industry's responsibility" (even though the government and health department runs the health care system and employs the majority of doctors...ahem)

By 'industry', I refer to what is considered the 'norm' for behaving as a doctor in addition to any oaths, traditions and ethics that are taught as part of doctor training. Think of it as 'how to behave correctly and 'fit into' a group' - and if you don't, you'd be asked to leave the group (in the case of medicine and the AMA, this effectively ends your career).

The medical industry as a whole would self-regulate. There is no need to introduce legislation to add onto whatever is being determined by the medical community.

As for your point regarding the government ownership of the majority of medical facilities and staff in Australia - I'd like to name how many MPs have their heads around how the medical industry works well enough to regulate it themselves. It would be unreasonable to say that the government is more capable of understanding how things work (and ought to work) in the medical community than those actively within it.

--->To some distant relative argument about pregnant women being abusive/mentally unstable and the doctors right to refuse to see her...
Dude, honestly.

I'm not the only one guilty of derailing the argument.

[excal]

is that they ARE obligated to refer them on to the relevant rehabilitation programs

Really? I don't recall seeing a law (outside of 'negligence', which is a tort rather than a criminal act) dealing with this. There will be probably be codes of conduct pertaining to this, and that's fine.

Torts is still law ...

Well, yes - but there are generally no criminal consequences for it (except in fraud).

[cara.mel]

No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid. You're now hanging onto vary shaky threads of your old shell of an argument that you've since completely abandoned.

I have nothing more to say to you except that this is very reminiscent of the Khalid thread and other arguments where you've done this moral high-horse bullshit. It is quite pathetic, really.

I thought you stopped posting here ~40 posts ago.

[excal]

No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid.

Explain.

[enwiabe]

No, those ad hominems were perfectly valid. You're now hanging onto vary shaky threads of your old shell of an argument that you've since completely abandoned.

I have nothing more to say to you except that this is very reminiscent of the Khalid thread and other arguments where you've done this moral high-horse bullshit. It is quite pathetic, really.

I thought you stopped posting here ~40 posts ago.

No, I stopped posting to brendan and coblin about the X's, Y's, M's, N's and Z's etc. This was a completely different argument.

[BA22]

To refuse a woman an abortion may cause her harm, a doctor who refuses to refer a woman for an abortion despite realising a very real possibility of harm is negligent, and any harm that comes to her is ultimately due to their refusal to be an impartial practitioner.

A doctor has a duty of care, and the legislation is fair. Despite the fact that this may "restrict my rights" as a practitioner, i think this law i more than appropriate for the circumstances and is reflective of current medical practice.

[excal]

To refuse a woman an abortion may cause her harm, a doctor who refuses to refer a woman for an abortion despite realising a very real possibility of harm is negligent, and any harm that comes to her is ultimately due to their refusal to be an impartial practitioner.

A doctor has a duty of care, and the legislation is fair. Despite the fact that this may "restrict my rights" as a practitioner, i think this law i more than appropriate for the circumstances and is reflective of current medical practice.

And I agree with you.

However, I think the regulation needs to occur with the industry association (i.e., the AMA - self-regulation) rather than an Act of Parliament. In other words, career-based sanctions rather than possible criminal penalties related to the act of refusing abortion.

Negligence and perhaps wrongful death as a result of refusal of service (secondary effect) is, of course, a consequence of the doctor's choice.

[Eriny]

Where we (seem to) agree:

- The medical industry can (within reason) require that doctors act a certain way. Doctors agree to these requirements by becoming a doctor. If doctors do not fulfill their requirements they rightfully face punishment.

- No doctor should have to perform an abortion if they feel uncomfortable doing so. Equally, no doctor should have the power to stop a woman from having an abortion.

- Abortion is a complex issue in which many different opinions can be reasonably held.

It seems to me that the role of the government in all this is moot, and an issue that is not particularly interesting.

[excal]

Where we (seem to) agree:

- The medical industry can (within reason) require that doctors act a certain way. Doctors agree to these requirements by becoming a doctor. If doctors do not fulfill their requirements they rightfully face punishment.

- No doctor should have to perform an abortion if they feel uncomfortable doing so. Equally, no doctor should have the power to stop a woman from having an abortion.

- Abortion is a complex issue in which many different opinions can be reasonably held.

It seems to me that the role of the government in all this is moot, and an issue that is not particularly interesting.

It's basically a differentiation between saying that the 'government legislates (forces) you to do this' or the 'medical industry believes that this is best practice and should be followed by all members of our organisation'.

And punishment should be kept within the industry, unless there were secondary effects of the decision.

[jess3254]

Excal - stop mentioning the AMA. They don't employ doctors, they are merely a lobby group and don't really regulate or implement the actual change.

The Australian Board of Medical Practitioners registers doctors, and the condition of their registration is that they follow the code of conduct. So the Health Services Commission and board of med practitioners essentially regulates doctors' actions.

That bill was created with the advice from doctors, nurses, social workers, ethicists, health information managers etc.

Abortion is a unique topic in medicine. There is rarely a treatment or procedure which doctors/other health professionals are morally opposed to. The bill enforces that abortion is now an accepted and required medical procedure, and that doctors who are opposed to abortion still need to refer to a medical practitioner who can, at the very least, give the patient advice (not necessarily carry the procedure out), and must still get their patient assistance. This ensures patient rights are maintained.

The stuff about right to free speech makes my skin crawl. Yes, you have the right to send a letter to the editor of newspapers, join a protest group, lobby the government and voice your opinions... But it's against protocol and just plain unethical to discuss your personal beliefs and morals with a patient during a medical appointment, let alone let them influence the way you treat the individual. That's not part of free speech, it's just not on. Again, if you don't like this, leave the profession. Or go into a speciality like Intensive Care Medicine, where your patients can't communicate with you and dealing with such an issue would be rare.

[excal]

Excal - stop mentioning the AMA. They don't employ doctors, they are merely a lobby group and don't really regulate or implement the actual change.

The Australian Board of Medical Practitioners registers doctors, and the condition of their registration is that they follow the code of conduct. So the Health Services Commission and board of med practitioners essentially regulates doctors' actions.

Apologies, my belief was AMA was the authoritative body - but obviously I'm wrong. Please consider my arguments including the AMA as being the ABMP instead.

In any case, lobby groups have a large role to play in regulation and shaping it.

That bill was created with doctors, nurses, social workers, ethicists, health information managers etc.

Abortion is a unique topic in medicine. There is rarely a treatment or procedure which doctors are morally opposed to. The bill enforces the fact that doctors who are opposed to abortion still need to refer to a medical practitioner who can, at the very least, give the patient advice (not necessarily carry the procedure out), and must still get their patient assistance. This ensures patient rights are maintained.

The stuff about right to free speech makes my skin crawl. Yes, you have the right to send a letter to the editor of newspapers, join a protest group, lobby the government and voice your opinions... But it's against protocol and just plain unethical to discuss your personal beliefs and morals with a patient during a medical appointment, let alone let them influence the way you treat the individual. It's just not on. Again, if you don't like this, leave the profession. Or go into a speciality like Intensive Care Medicine, where your patients can't communicate with you.

Like I said, if its felt so strongly within the medical community that these provisions are clearly needed and desired - then it should be implemented within the medical community. Not in an Act of Parliament where it could be taken as a prima facie reduction in freedom of speech. It should be a voluntary agreement between doctors (and, for that matter, other health-care providers) and the registration board (i.e., code of conduct).

[enwiabe]

Excalibur, this is what I meant by my ad-hominems, and what jessie0 has so usefully illustrated in her post. You are one of those people who enjoys being self-righteous and getting up on his moral high-horse and talking crap about matters that YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND to make yourself feel better about your sorry ass. >_>

Your complete lack of any sort of grasp of the internal workings of the medical system in Australia is truly hilarious when one considers the conviction with which you spew your crap

[costargh]

Attack the argument, not the person... haven't people including yourself told me that before?  :smitten:

[enwiabe]

Yes, except that I've done both. And correctly identified the problems with both.

EDIT: I should mention that the ad hominems only began when excalibur simply refused to accept that he was wrong and KEPT arguing from a stupidly indefensible position just to "prove his point". As if he were trying to save face, instead of saying "yeah whoops didn't consider that" and back down. It's what he always does, and this frustrated me, so I decided to let it out.