At the end of the day, nothing prevents them from getting it; they just go to a different doctor.Originally Posted by benzss
You're basically arguing a theoretical principle that has no practical application because it's not a real-world issue. It amounts to a politician trying to regulate morality just the same as when conservative Christians try to have their morals enforced.
I'm not really arguing one way or another, I'm just advocating the patient having a choice. And since the doctor is the only choice available, I'm not comfortable with a doctor blocking a patient's wishes on a whim.
But yes if it's feasible that another doctor will offer a 'better' service, then it's no big deal, but I'm not familiar enough with the distribution of doctors in the US to really have an opinion.
The similar argument in the UK is that people who smoke/drink heavily/whatever should be denied NHS treatment. And my argument against that is that there is no second option available because government has socialised the entire industry, so denying the service is simply trampling all over that person's freedoms. Turns out in this thread's instance, there IS a second choice, it just might not be the easiest option.
Aren't abortions performed by specialists, with specialized equipment and training? I was under the impression that abortionists are specialized OB/GYNs who are employed at abortion clinics, and that if you go in to your local GP and want an abortion, they are generally going to be unable to perform one even if they wanted to. The only doctors who would have the skills and equipment to perform an abortion in the first place would be those who are working in abortion clinics (and thus obviously don't need to be "forced" to provide abortions). Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's my understanding. So, if this understanding is correct, rolling back the "conscience clause" would in no way put doctors into a position of being forced to perform abortions against their will.
Also, can you cite a source on doctors having no choice but to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger? This makes me raise an eyebrow.
Last edited by Syme; 04-09-2009 at 01:50 PM.
FYI, abortions are performed by normal hospital rotation doctors with at least some regularity. "Abortionists" (I hate this word) would, as far as I know, refer to doctors in abortion clinics, whose only role is to perform abortions.
Ahh, I stand corrected on that point.
However, I've been reading more on this issue, and I just found the actual content of the regulation that Obama is rolling back. My description in the OP is actually poorly worded. Here's what Bush's last-minute regulation actually does:
"The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways."
From the Washington Post's article on the regulation when it was introduced in January, here
So here's the deal: Before Bush added this regulation, doctors/pharmacists/nurses/etc. could refuse to provide a service on the ground of conscience, BUT if they did so, they might be punished or fired by their employer. E.g., if you work at a pharmacy and refuse to give someone their birth control pills, the owner/manager of the pharmacy could fire you for refusing to do your job. Or if a doctor at a hospital refused to provide an abortion even though the hospital's policy is that they will provide abortions, the hospital management could fire him for it. What Bush's new regulation did was prohibit businesses from disciplining or terminating their own employees for refusing to provide a service that is part of the job they were hired to do. It said that health care employees could refuse to do their job, on the grounds of moral objection, without fear of being fired for it. And it's this regulation that the Obama administration has now undone.
So, bottom line, in no way does this force anyone to provide an abortion, or even to fill a birth control pill prescription. It just means that if they refuse to do so, it's not illegal for their employer to fire them for it. Sorry about the shitty explanation in the OP, everyone. That's what I get for not doing enough research before posting a thread.
Because they are DOCTORS, not independent service providers, like a massage therapist (in a state that holds no laws or credentials necessary to practice). Health care is a highly regulated field, just like law, or professional engineering. If your FAITH gets in the way of the legal rights of patients, you are free to not practice medicine. It comes with the medical license. All legal treatments should be available. If you disagree with them too bad. Do not practice medicine. If/When I get married, I want to trust that my doctor gives us all the options available for any pregnancy issues that come up, if they do, and not just the ones he personally feels right doing (not just abortion, ANYTHING, like assisted pregnancy). That is not for him/her to decide. If he has a problem performing those duties, then quit.
This doesn't work elsewhere, a firefighter couldn't say "nah, I'm not going to put out this fire because the owner is an atheist", or a police officer can't choose to not-enforce domestic abuse laws because his religion says it's ok to beat women. If your faith or personal beliefs interferes with your DUTIES, then do not perform that career.
Last edited by MrTroy; 04-09-2009 at 06:43 PM.
Mr Troy is right. You don't get many vegetarians working in slaughter houses. That doesn't mean they couldn't work in slaughter houses, just that if they do then they'll have to bend their beliefs because that's what their job is.
If you don't want to do certain medical procedures then do not enter the medical profession. Simple as.
Here's a particularly scary effect of the "conscience clause": When a woman is raped, one thing she should do ASAP is go to the hospital, where she will be treated with something called a rape kit, or sexual assault evidence collection kit. This is basically a collection of equipment that a caregiver (usually a nurse) can use to collect any biological evidence that may be useful in catching/prosecuting the rapist; it also includes various items that may be used to treat any injuries that the woman has sustained as a result of the attack. One thing that it often contains is emergency contraception drugs (morning-after pills), for obvious reasons. Under Bush's additions to the "conscience clause", a caregiver would be protected from punishment if the hospital employing that caregiver includes emergency contraceptive pills in their rape kits, but the caregiver decides not to give the rape victim the pill, or even tell the victim that the kit includes a pill at all and that they have the option of taking it.
Fuck. That.
It's not as simple as that, either. It's one thing to object to medical procedures because of your conscience; it's another thing entirely to object to giving care because of your own inappropriate prejudices.
These are elective procedures.
You're substituting your morality for the doctor's; you're trying to compel him to do something he doesn't want to do or believe is right. There are other doctors who would be more than happy to make a few bucks to perform the elective procedure; if I don't agree with it, let the patient find one of them.
Abortions are rarely more elective than boob jobs. The obvious exception here is rape/incest, in which case the law needs to protect victims first. Unfortunately, the majority of abortions aren't intended to protect a victim as much as they are intended to protect an irresponsible behavior.
This situation is not in any way different than a group of Christian conservatives trying to pass into law their code of morality. All you've done is spun it under the guise of progressiveness and undermined the doctor's rights to be benefit of no one.
If the doctor does not want to perform legal procedures in his field, then he should not be practicing medicine. My general practitioner is not a surgeon or able to perform abortions. If you are against abortion, then do not practice medicine in a situation where you would be asked to perform an abortion, or to recommend a doctor or place to go that would if you are not qualified to do it yourself. There are distinct specialties in the medical field, not everyone can perform open heart surgery. If you do not believe god would want you to join sperm & egg in a lab and put them in a woman, then by all means do not practice medicine. Doctors have no right to subject there restrictive religious code on patients. You took an oath and got a license to practice medicine. That's what practicing medicine is, not "pick and choose".
If you are an electrician, you can't pick and choose which codes to meet or not. If your work does not meet the code, then you will no longer be a certified electrician. You can't do things "your way" just because you want to in these types of fields like law and medicine. If your personal beliefs get in the way, then you are in the wrong field... you need to fit the industry, the industry should not mangle itself to meet your beliefs. Do you think meat packing plants would change their operations if a few vegetarians joined the staff? No, of course not... if the vegetarian does not like what comes with that position, then leave.
MrTroy, even though my sympathies are with your side of the argument... where is it written, anywhere at all, that a doctor must be willing to perform any and all medical procedures? Does it say so in any of the legislation that regulates the medical profession, or in any other laws for that matter? Does it say so in the Hippocratic Oath or anything like that? Does it say so on their license to practice medicine, or on their med school diploma? If not, your comparison to electricians refusing to follow code (for instance) is invalid.
Also, prompted by what ephekt said, I've been reading up on who exactly performs abortions. Ephekt was right; it's not just specialists, and doctors who specifically specialize in abortions and work at abortion clinics aren't the only ones who may be asked to perform one. A woman might well walk into the office of her regular doctor and ask him to perform an abortion. So it's not really accurate to compare it to open-heart surgery or other procedures that are ONLY performed by specialists who have chosen to perform that kind of work.
Last edited by Syme; 04-10-2009 at 12:19 PM.
I think I've said everything I care to say in this thread, so I'm just going to wrap up my involvement by saying that, in this case, I agree with Atmosfear, and that Syme has a good rebuttal to MrTroy, and I respect him even more now because he was able to be contrary to someone who was on his side but doing it wrong. I also think that the conscience clause is flawed, but I don't think it is beyond repair. With a few simple provisions a resolution could be made that would make everyone (except for people on the extremes of either side) happy.
Last edited by Mr. E; 04-10-2009 at 12:46 PM.
Since you seem to be unable to read regular size text, again:
THIS IS YOUR OWN FUCKING OPINION THAT YOU ARE SUBSTITUTING FOR FACT,
it is a matter of legal and medical debate, and you are coming out of left field now by adding that in the case of rape or incest abortion is suddenly less of an "elective procedure" than it would be otherwise.
Yes, if someone was deformed in an auto accident or due to a birth defect such as cleft palette, then it is obvious that the plastic surgery neccesary to correct these deformities would not be merely elective since their features are grossly far from normal, and the plastic surgery would be an attempt to bring their features closer to normal so that they can function normally or not be ashamed of their appearance in public. There is a definite and obvious physiological distinction to be made between the condition of the person needing non-elective sugery and the condition of person with features clearly in the range of what's considered normal that just wants to look prettier.
However, whether the child was concieved in a consensual sex act or by rape, there is no difference in the physiological condition of the pregnant woman. The act of abortion would still be just as elective (or non-elective) in either case because the initial physiological conditions are indistinguishable.
MrTroy is making the same error in his argument that I made earlier. Doctors don't have to make available every legal medical procedure. They must make available every non-elective , "neccesary" medical proedure. The argument is then one of whether abortion is a neccesary medical procedure or not.
It is obvious that some medical procedures which merely but profoundly affect quality of life are considered non-elective, such as the correction of non-life-threatening but abnormal facial defects or the prevention or correction of conditions that threaten hearing and sight. So should abortion be considered non-elective? Plan B? Contraception? That is not so clear and is hardly a moot point.
Last edited by sycld; 04-10-2009 at 02:40 PM.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks