Doctors reject abortion motions

Grayson

Crasp wrote: »

So all the doctors should change profession? where does that leave them?

More importantly, where does that leave patients if the majority of doctors* quit?

your analogy is flawed as doctors (most of the time) only know one thing and that's medicine. If I told you that to avoid apple computer you would need to get out of IT altogether and retrain as something else how would you feel?

Anyway, that's beside the point. The only point I was making is that the poster I orignally quoted seemed to think that the only person affected by abortion is the woman, quite selfish imo.


In the UK the practice is that doctors can refuse to perform abortions for whatever reason they like and the woman has to find a doctor who is willing to perform one. Maybe a system like that could work in Ireland.



*Majority of doctors as represended in the article in the OP.

How many GP's perform abortions in the UK? Or ophthalmologists? Or cardiac surgeons? Or psychiatrists? Or pathologists? The vast majority of all doctors in any country will never perform an abortion. There's a huge range of medical fields available to a doctor who has an objection to performing an abortion. So if they don't want to, they don't have to ever do it. In other words, you don't want to perform an abortion, don't apply for a job where you have to.

BTW, you do realise that most doctors never actually attend the IMO meetings and so never vote. These doctors that voted weren't polling the rest of the doctors and weren't representing their view. So that vote is hardly representative of irish doctors. Most doctors were off working at that point.

SB2013

cassi wrote: »

The doctors job is to provide medical care and perform medical procedures. If abortion comes into law then doctors will be expected to provide it regardless of their stance on it.

And if they are working in a clinic or hospital that offers abortions then they can't refuse to do one!

They can have a motion on it but regardless of its outcome, the outcome of a referendum will be the deciding factor here.

I'm not sure you understand the law that is intended. It will still be up to the doctor to make the decision on balancing the lives of both patients and their personal stance may very well affect this judgement

Seachmall

SB2013 wrote: »

It will still be up to the doctor to make the decision on balancing the lives of both patients and their personal stance may very well affect this judgement

And that's unfortunate.

When we attend a doctor we expect their professional opinion on our ailment and treatment, we should not be exposed to their personal opinion.

Pompey Magnus

dyer wrote: »

I don't see why, in this day and age, people still feel they have the right to dictate the lives of others, however well intentioned. Forcing people to do what they don't want to do and using the law to do it, is simply tantamount to torture, at least in my humble opinion.

There is not a single citizen in this country who is free to do whatever they like with their own body and it is a good thing too, if you disagree try going for a walk through Dublin with no clothes on and see how far you get before the State steps in.

See how far the "It's my body, my choice" defence gets you in Court.

melekalikimaka

cassi wrote: »

Morality have absolutely no place in medicine. Doctor should treat as required for the best of the patient.

in your opinion.


things aren't black and white.

Grayson

SB2013 wrote: »

It's not about not knowing. It's about different opinions as to when it begins. Everyone knows that their opinion is right. I disagree with you anyway. If you are not sure someone is alive you should not discount that possibility unless it's necessary.

When a womans life is on the line, it is about knowing. If you make an assumption without any knowledge, don't be surprised when people think you are wrong.
The health of the patient is the most important factor. I certainly wouldn't want a doctor who endangered my life, or didn't do what was best for me because of their religious beliefs. In fact, I'd sue and also do my best to make sure they were banned from practicing again. I'd even see if the DPP could try them.

Arpa

Crasp wrote: »

So now you've changed your position, and doctors should have a choice in whether they perform abortions or not?

No, no, you're not understanding. Abortion should be available to any woman who wants it. The doctors should then have the choice as to whether they want to work in that field or not. Much like in UK as a previous poster stated,

"How many GP's perform abortions in the UK? Or ophthalmologists? Or cardiac surgeons? Or psychiatrists? Or pathologists?"

It is only doctors who specialise in this field and are morally okay with the idea that perform terminations. Nobody is forcing them.
The ultimate decision on whether a woman is to have an abortion or not lies with the patient not the doctor. If she decides to have an abortion then she should be able to go to a clinic with a doctor who does not have any hang ups morally.

Same with Euthanasia. Why should anybody but the patient get to make the choice affecting their own lives?

Abortion should be available and doctors who do not wish to partake don't have to. There would be thousands of doctors in Ireland all too happy to retrain and set up clinics providing termination services be it medically or surgically.

Pompey Magnus

Grayson wrote: »

=
The health of the patient is the most important factor. I certainly wouldn't want a doctor who endangered my life, or dodn't do what was best for me because of their religious beliefs. In fact, I'd sue and also do my best to make sure they were banned from practicing again. I'd even see if the DPP could try them.

And what if it was their professional belief that a foetus was human and so also a patient and therefore the doctor decided to take an action which increased the risk for one patient in order to maximise the chance of survival for both?

Grayson

melekalikimaka wrote: »

in your opinion.


things aren't black and white.

No, Morality doesn't have a place in medicine. Ethics do. But they are different things.

For example I may believe that if someone did something nasty to me I would be justified in hunting them down. But that doesn't mean the state should do it.

Traditionally morals are what I should do, ethics are what we aught to do.

Medicine involves ethics, not morals.

Seachmall

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

And what if it was their professional belief that a foetus was human and so also a patient and therefore the doctor decided to take an action which increased the risk for one patient in order to maximise the chance of survival for both?

If it was their professional belief then it would be widely accepted by the medical community and would presumably have supporting evidence.

If that were the case these discussions would be unnecessary.

Unfortunately whether or not a fetus is a human by legal standards is not a scientific concern. It's a political one.

Grayson

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

And what if it was their professional belief that a foetus was human and so also a patient and therefore the doctor decided to take an action which increased the risk for one patient in order to maximise the chance of survival for both?

believing is not knowing. They should not risk the life of the mother without that knowledge. Would you want a doctor who recommended prayer over treatment because they believed that God would help you better?

SB2013

Grayson wrote: »

When a womans life is on the line, it is about knowing. If you make an assumption without any knowledge, don't be surprised when people think you are wrong.
The health of the patient is the most important factor. I certainly wouldn't want a doctor who endangered my life, or didn't do what was best for me because of their religious beliefs. In fact, I'd sue and also do my best to make sure they were banned from practicing again. I'd even see if the DPP could try them.

Nothing to do with religion. It's about when you believe a human is created. Some believe it is created at conception, some when the brain has developed, some when it is viable outside the womb and some when it is born. It's a question where the answer can only be defined by what you believe.

cassi

melekalikimaka wrote: »

in your opinion.


things aren't black and white.

So if you go to a doctor pregnant and the doctor doesn't think youre fit for it and says you require an abortion because of his morals, you'll accept that decision?

Grayson

SB2013 wrote: »

Nothing to do with religion. It's about when you believe a human is created. Some believe it is created at conception, some when the brain has developed, some when it is viable outside the womb and some when it is born. It's a question where the answer can only be defined by what you believe.

Some witch doctors believe that raping a child will rid you of aids. In that case, the doctor is balancing the needs of both and trying to save a life. There's no evidence to support their assumptions, but it is their personal belief.

Medicine is a science. It's not about beliefs. If you think it should be, then take monkey penis to get an erection and if you get a cold in june, it's because you didn't decorate the may tree.

crockholm

A point was made earlier that if you are opposed to abortion,you shouldn't have one. Yet now when it comes to a doctors choice,that option disappears entirely. So rather than force a doctor to preform a proceedure s/he is opposed to, just find a doctor that has no qualms about it.



Also,just a quick question, how many abortions (as a percentage) are carried out as a result of rape/incest? what % would be due to the child/fetus being incompatible with life? and what % would be aborted as a lifestyle choice?

Crasp

Grayson wrote: »

How many GP's perform abortions in the UK? Or ophthalmologists? Or cardiac surgeons? Or psychiatrists? Or pathologists? The vast majority of all doctors in any country will never perform an abortion. There's a huge range of medical fields available to a doctor who has an objection to performing an abortion. So if they don't want to, they don't have to ever do it. In other words, you don't want to perform an abortion, don't apply for a job where you have to.

BTW, you do realise that most doctors never actually attend the IMO meetings and so never vote. These doctors that voted weren't polling the rest of the doctors and weren't representing their view. So that vote is hardly representative of irish doctors. Most doctors were off working at that point.

Arpa wrote: »

No, no, you're not understanding. Abortion should be available to any woman who wants it. The doctors should then have the choice as to whether they want to work in that field or not. Much like in UK as a previous poster stated,

"How many GP's perform abortions in the UK? Or ophthalmologists? Or cardiac surgeons? Or psychiatrists? Or pathologists?"

It is only doctors who specialise in this field and are morally okay with the idea that perform terminations. Nobody is forcing them.
The ultimate decision on whether a woman is to have an abortion or not lies with the patient not the doctor. If she decides to have an abortion then she should be able to go to a clinic with a doctor who does not have any hang ups morally.

Same with Euthanasia. Why should anybody but the patient get to make the choice affecting their own lives?

Abortion should be available and doctors who do not wish to partake don't have to. There would be thousands of doctors in Ireland all too happy to retrain and set up clinics providing termination services be it medically or surgically.

I was the poster who mentioned the UK above.

As far as I'm concerned both these points have now been clarified, as both of your original posts (Grayson and Arpa) implied that all doctors should be forced to give abortions on demand and without question as long as the woman decides that that is her wish, as the patient knows best and the doctor has no say int he matter, and if they don't like it they should quit and become plumbers or accountants or whatever.

My point was that you cannot force doctors to performs abortions without considering them, as maybe they don't want to terminate pregnancies all day long for the rest of their lives. Perhaps doctors don't want to be forced into giving abortions for whatever their personal reasons might be (religious or moral or otherwise), and this is why perhaps those that voted did so in the way that they did.





My own personal opionions on abortion shall remain just that: personal. I have no intention of taking either side in this particular debate at this point in time.


All I will say is that frankly I believe religion should play no role in medicine at all, but that is another debate altogether.

dyer

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

There is not a single citizen in this country who is free to do whatever they like with their own body and it is a good thing too, if you disagree try going for a walk through Dublin with no clothes on and see how far you get before the State steps in.

See how far the "It's my body, my choice" defence gets you in Court.

That's just nitpicking! You know what I meant in the context of things.

Seachmall

crockholm wrote: »

A point was made earlier that if you are opposed to abortion,you shouldn't have one. Yet now when it comes to a doctors choice,that option disappears entirely. So rather than force a doctor to preform a proceedure s/he is opposed to, just find a doctor that has no qualms about it.

Because a doctor has willingly entered a profession where they are expected to act as an objective caregiver.


They should not inject bias into their work. Nor, as I said previously, should they be given the power to circumvent a democratically accepted procedure based on non-scientific beliefs.

Neyite

SB2013 wrote: »

I think you are thinking of the C case which allowed traffic. The X case was in relation to the threat of suicide being valid as a threat to life of the mother.

There are two types of rape under Irish law. The first, referred to as common law rape, one is committed if a man has sex with a woman without her consent. Only a man can commit this crime. The second, referred to as section 4 rape, involves oral or anal rape with the use of a penis. It also covers the penetration of the vagina by an object.

Thanks for the clarification. After I posted, I remembered the C case and wondered if that was the one.

stanley 2

Seachmall wrote: »

Because a doctor has willingly entered a profession where they are expected to act as an objective caregiver.


They should not inject bias into their work. Nor, as I said previously, should they be given the power to circumvent a democratically accepted procedure based on non-scientific beliefs.

in some muslim country female circumcision is a democratically accecpted procedure should doctors not be given the power to circumvent this one

robman60

crockholm wrote: »

Also,just a quick question, how many abortions (as a percentage) are carried out as a result of rape/incest? what % would be due to the child/fetus being incompatible with life? and what % would be aborted as a lifestyle choice?

I read recently that in the US, fewer than 1% of abortions are performed on the basis of life of the mother, incest, and rape combined. A further 7% are categorised as for health reasons, while the remaining 92% are elective. Unsure about abnormalities.

Seachmall

stanley 2 wrote: »

in some muslim country female circumcision is a democratically accecpted procedure should doctors not be given the power to circumvent this one

FGM is not an accepted medical procedure and it is performed for non-medical reasons. Therefore a doctor should not be required to perform it.

Grayson

Crasp wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned both these points have now been clarified, as both of your original posts (Grayson and Arpa) implied that all doctors should be forced to give abortions on demand and without question as long as the woman decides that that is her wish, as the patient knows best and the doctor has no say int he matter, and if they don't like it they should quit and become plumbers or accountants or whatever.

Where did i say that? I said that if they don't want to, they shouldn't be working in a job where they have to. There's loads of other options.
but yes, a doctor should provide a woman (or a man) with the best medical service that they can. Refusing to is grounds for malpractice in my opinion.

As for on demand, that normally happens in clinics. And I can't see someone with a moral objection to abortion applying for a job there.

Chuck Stone

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

And what if it was their professional belief

Lol at 'professional belief'.

SB2013

Grayson wrote: »

Some witch doctors believe that raping a child will rid you of aids. In that case, the doctor is balancing the needs of both and trying to save a life. There's no evidence to support their assumptions, but it is their personal belief.

Medicine is a science. It's not about beliefs. If you think it should be, then take monkey penis to get an erection and if you get a cold in june, it's because you didn't decorate the may tree.

I suppose it serves me right for thinking an adult conversation might be possible. So why don't you tell us all when a life becomes human scientifically. At what stage of gestation is it a person and not a bundle at cells. Be specific now because it's a science remember.

Seachmall

SB2013 wrote: »

I suppose it serves me right for thinking an adult conversation might be possible. So why don't you tell us all when a life becomes human scientifically. At what stage of gestation is it a person and not a bundle at cells. Be specific now because it's a science remember.

Human is a classification of species. A species is a group of organisms capable of producing fertile young. A member of a species is an organism. Humans are multicellular organisms. A multicellular organism is one composed of various organ systems.

Therefore you could deduce that humans are by necessity composed of organ systems. A requirement that is not met at conception.


Even if you reject that and accept that humans exist at conception you are forced to ask if it's a living human. By medical definition a human life ends when the heart stops beating. From that you could infer that human life starts when the heart begins beating. The heart doesn't exist at conception so even if it the fertilised egg is human, does it qualify to be a living human?


But that's a semantical breakdown and not a scientific or medical view point because science doesn't necessarily concern itself the issue. When a new organism gains the right to life is a political decision. Not a scientific one.


So any doctor promoting a viewpoint on when life does or does not begin is presenting their personal opinion. Not their professional one. And they should not be making medical decisions based on personal opinion over professional opinion.

Grayson

SB2013 wrote: »

I suppose it serves me right for thinking an adult conversation might be possible. So why don't you tell us all when a life becomes human scientifically. At what stage of gestation is it a person and not a bundle at cells. Be specific now because it's a science remember.

Did I say I was a doctor? No. What I said was that nothing should come down to a religious belief.

Or do you think a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant should be refused chemo because it might harm a baby.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that 1 week before birth it's a baby. One week after conception it's a bunch of cells. About the 20th week it becomes viable. But like I said, I'm not a doctor. If they are uncertain I would like it to because of scientific uncertainty, not because of religious belief.

SB2013

Grayson wrote: »

Did I say I was a doctor? No. What I said was that nothing should come down to a religious belief.

Or do you think a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant should be refused chemo because it might harm a baby.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that 1 week before birth it's a baby. One week after conception it's a bunch of cells. About the 20th week it becomes viable. But like I said, I'm not a doctor. If they are uncertain I would like it to because of scientific uncertainty, not because of religious belief.

So you have no issue with abortions performed in month 8 of a pregnancy? After all, it's not a baby. I'm not sure why you think it's your place to make light of an extremely complicated issue when you yourself have no knowledge of the subject and can't even come up with a position to take.

And it's got nothing to do with religion.

Turtyturd

SB2013 wrote: »

And it's got nothing to do with religion.

It does though, whether you know it or not the stance that life begins at conception is steeped in religious influence.

SB2013

Turtyturd wrote: »

It does though, whether you know it or not the stance that life begins at conception is steeped in religious influence.

May for a lot of people that's what they base their belief on. But there are many people who believe this without being religious.