Thread: Christian Doctors Angry Over "Conscience Rule" Reversal

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

These are elective procedures.

...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Syme

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.

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.

Barring emergencies, doctors should be able to choose what procedures they perform. Just as their employers should be able to fire them for not doing their job if they so choose, and patients able to sue them.

I think it's a slippery slope when we start telling people they're free from scrutiny or recourse if they just claim a moral imperative.

Edit: I'd like to add the stipulation that doctors who refuse services based on this provide referral to someone who will do them. Declining on moral grounds is fine by me, so long as it's an act of their conscious and not an act of imposing their views on others.

I'd also to say than any idiot refusing to sell condoms et al should receive no protection whatsoever.

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.