Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

.......

This post has been deleted.

neonsofa

I'd be appalled if a GP refused to prescribe me the contraceptive pill based on their own moral and religious beliefs on contraception. Same goes for the morning after pill. And now too with abortion pills once it's legislated for. It actually shocks me that people would try to defend a GP refusing to refer a patient. Whatever about not prescribing or performing procedures.

.......

This post has been deleted.

topper75

Yeah_Right wrote: »

...Women have abortions if they want them and everyone gets on with their lives. ...

Well sort of. The women get on with THEIR lives yes.

ELM327

topper75 wrote: »

Well sort of. The women get on with THEIR lives yes.

And if you want to create new lives then you are free to do so.
Assuming you can find someone to procreate with.

Cupcake_Crisis

Graces7 wrote: »

Hope not. After all doctors are meant to preserve life not destroy it. And to refer on would be to facilitate the killing they are not in agreement with .

You cannot force anyone to act against their deepest beliefs. Well, not without becoming an aggressive dictator.

Surely that is not your real desire?

( Just dropped in to see what was going on. Dropping out again! Sad)

As far as I’m concerned, a GP can be a conscientious objector to their hearts content. But to refuse to refer is prioritizing the unborn patient above the living patient. It’s saying ‘I think the 8 week old fetus in your womb has more value than you- my patient of however many years so I’m going to refuse to treat you or help you find someone who will’. And tbh it’s just petulant.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

opposition to abortion isn't a religious specific issue however so IMO does not apply to your point, which over all i would agree with. given abortion is the ending of a life, it's very very different to any of the other treatments which a gp may object to providing, so therefore i am in support of an exemption for gp's who do not wish to have any hand in an abortion taking place, from being forced to have such a hand.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

opposition to abortion isn't a religious specific issue however

You really don't have to keep pretending that is true, the referendum is over now.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Yeah_Right

topper75 wrote: »

Well sort of. The women get on with THEIR lives yes.

Huh?? The guys can get on with their lives too. They generally don't concern themselves with a woman's medical problems. Maybe they'll make them a cup of tea or something and then they get on with their lives.

RobertKK

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/public-list-of-gps-providing-abortion-now-likely-37000509.html

A public list of GPs who are registered to provide medical abortions may be necessary to ensure women looking for a termination are not left confused about where to get the service, it emerged yesterday.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar reiterated that while GPs can have a conscientious objection to providing medical abortions, they will be ethically obliged to refer a woman to a doctor who is participating in the scheme.
However, the National Association of General Practitioners has highlighted the objection to referring a woman on to a colleague which a minority of doctors with deeply held anti-abortion views will want to uphold.

So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000

RobertKK wrote:

So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.

No issue with a list once an exclusion area for protests is also enacted. No one should have to run the gauntlet with protesters outside a doctor's surgery.

Fighting Tao

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/public-list-of-gps-providing-abortion-now-likely-37000509.html



So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.

Well done on having a word in Leo’s and Simons ears. I’ll keep you in mind for assistance with the next issue I have.

end of the road

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No issue with a list once an exclusion area for protests is also enacted. No one should have to run the gauntlet with protesters outside a doctor's surgery.

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Fighting Tao

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Prison isn’t a waste of money for that type of person.

RobertKK

Leo Varadkar seems to think it will be around 60 doctors needed to provide the proposed abortion service.

Hitman3000

end of the road wrote:

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO. if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Personally any body willing to harass a woman outside a GP's surgery deserves a stay in the Joy. Money well spent in my opinion. Incarceration is quite effective.

Walter Bishop

Love a bit of the ol' drive-by posting: I'll make my point but you needn't think I'm going to listen to yours!!

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

well perhaps it wouldn;t stop them initially but a couple of weeks in the 'joy might make them think about doing it again and deter others.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

these types have been at it for years. I remember going into a IFPA clinic and being subjected to verbal abuse from some nuts across the road. The staff were in contact with gardai but they couldnt do anything. This might be a good opportunity to sort out laws relating to these kinds of protests. Patients and staff shouldn't have to put up with this kind of intimidation.

gctest50

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Love a bit of the ol' drive-by posting: I'll make my point but you needn't think I'm going to listen to yours!!

Another of the many that looked at Ireland as some fantasy retirement place with leprechauns, donkeys and red haired maidens w/ dodgy healthcare


The country is finally taking off the training wheels and will be looking after the healthcare of women in Ireland, in Ireland

end of the road

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Personally any body willing to harass a woman outside a GP's surgery deserves a stay in the Joy. Money well spent in my opinion.

harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Incarceration is quite effective.

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

Hitman3000

end of the road wrote:

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

You missed my point, hard to protest from the environs of a cell in the Joy. Having said that if my partner were to be subjected to harassment from a protester , it would be more than her requiring medical attention.

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

Leo Varadkar seems to think it will be around 60 doctors needed to provide the proposed abortion service.

As Leo Varadkar pointed out, they'll all have to provide referrals, and the 60 doctors needed quote is kind of vague.

So where the issue stands:
1. Doctors must refer - good on Leo for clarifying that
2. "Medical Resources" need to be figured out for the rest. This is gamesmanship around funding in my opinion.

Overall, I think good - Leo laid down the law about referrals. Yet another no-bot squawking point sent off.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.

They are nowhere near strong enough. To use the harassment laws in place the harassment has to be persistent. So a single protest outside would be within law. We need a specific offence that is easier to prosecute.

end of the road wrote: »

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

the people doing protests of this type are not career criminals who accept jail time as an occupational hazard.

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.



very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

A buffer zone has been required in other states so yep I would view it as a very much so worth considering. The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

ohnonotgmail

pitifulgod wrote: »

A buffer zone has been required in other states so yep I would view it as a very much so worth considering. The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

well i think we all know why.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well perhaps it wouldn;t stop them initially but a couple of weeks in the 'joy might make them think about doing it again and deter others.

i'd be surprised if it would tbh. i'd reccan it's more likely to spur them to continue, and play the victim as well.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the people doing protests of this type are not career criminals who accept jail time as an occupational hazard.

but would possibly be willing to accept jail time as part of fighting the cause.

pitifulgod wrote: »

The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

because i believe in the right to protest regardless of whether i agree with or like or not, specific protests or protesters. anything that restricts the right to protest, in my view leaves the possibility of extension to other areas and before we know it the possible erosion of our right to protest.