nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

mcmoustache

Can we not just keep a public register of GPs who wish to be exempted from providing referrals and let the free market decide? I think people are overthinking this.

_Dara_

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't actually care if it is opt-in or opt-out. I think the reason Robert likes Opt-in is that he still hasn't got his head around the fact that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of abortion. He imagines opt-in will be a small list and hard to find one nearby and it will be a roadblock.

But I think doctors, highly educated and upper middle class, are more pro-choice than the average voter, and we'll see 3:1 or more offering services once payments are sorted out. Opt in or out will make little difference.

Yes, I’ve seen a fair triumphalist tweets about people leaving their GP surgery if it offers referrals or medical abortions, as if those surgeries will be destitute from all the people leaving. Some people live in cloud cuckoo land.

gctest50

mcmoustache wrote: »

Can we not just keep a public register of GPs who wish to be exempted from providing referrals and let the free market decide? I think people are overthinking this.

Why ? what next ?

It'd be like a group of Gardaí that won't write speeding tickets cos they collect dinky cars

B0jangles

Should a Jehovah's Witness who is a surgeon be permitted to deny blood transfusions to the people they operate on?

At what point does a person's right to follow their conscience become secondary to the right of their patients/clients/customers to receive treatment or services to which they are legally entitled?

_Dara_

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not fighting the referendum result, I believe in the concept of conscientious objection, which is a freedom that should be allowed.

Doctors had no option to conscientiously object to the 8th amendment.

Pedro K

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not fighting the referendum result, I believe in the concept of conscientious objection, which is a freedom that should be allowed.

Do you believe that a Rastafari doctor should be allowed conscientiously object to a kidney transplant? Or a Jehovah's witness to a blood transfusion?

Kurtosis

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not even arguing about the abortions themselves.

The referendum result doesn't make conscientious objectors change their minds. There is no compassion from Simon Harris for conscientious objectors if he makes doctors who oppose abortion act against their will by having them a part of the abortion process via referral.
I do see it being a big issue which could easily be avoided.

Referrals are not only part of normal clinical practice when a doctor is unable or unwilling to provide a service, they are essential for continuity of care. They establish a channel of communication between two clinicians so that essential information such as a patient's clinical history can be shared. Allowing doctors to refuse to refer would result in unsafe situations similar to pre-repeal where women are sent to new health providers with no communication of their important clinical history.

antiskeptic

B0jangles wrote: »

Should a Jehovah's Witness who is a surgeon be permitted to deny blood transfusions to the people they operate on?

That's a life or death situation. This is just a case of picking the doctor next door instead.

You might find resistance from doctors who'd be otherwise prepared to provide to provide abortion services. I mean, if conscientious objection is removed as a grounds for not providing a service, then all doctors are open to future movement in areas which do affect their conscience.

They'd be opening a door they wouldn't be able to close again.

mcmoustache

gctest50 wrote: »

Why ? what next ?

It'd be like a group of Gardaí that won't write speeding tickets cos they collect dinky cars

I'm against the opt-out myself as I don't believe that doctors should be able to deny treatment because of their religion. The problem is that if they are compelled to do so, we'll see pro-birth doctors misleading patients.

On the other hand, if I knew where a GP stood on this issue, I could make an informed choice as a consumer. It might also be more palatable to the pro-birth crowd.

That being said, another poster (B0Jangles) raised the prospect of the slippery slope with regard to this and he/she makes a strong point. Allowing the exemption as I suggested could leave us with all sorts of religious doctors refusing treatments due to their religions.

ohnonotgmail

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm against the opt-out myself as I don't believe that doctors should be able to deny treatment because of their religion. The problem is that if they are compelled to do so, we'll see pro-birth doctors misleading patients.

On the other hand, if I knew where a GP stood on this issue, I could make an informed choice as a consumer. It might also be more palatable to the pro-birth crowd.

That being said, another poster (B0Jangles) raised the prospect of the slippery slope with regard to this and he/she makes a strong point. Allowing the exemption as I suggested could leave us with all sorts of religious doctors refusing treatments due to their religions.

which would professional and/or legal consequences.

mcmoustache

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

which would professional and/or legal consequences.

True, but those consequences will likely take a long time and during that time, a lot of people could be misled into going through with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm also not sure about how well a deterrent would work - people who believe that a god wants them to do something can be a bit driven.

Then again, if they were struck off for denying care, we'd see fewer of these cases as time went on but it would take several years and some pain in those years.

Personally, I'd like to know who these doctors are so that I could make an informed choice but after seeing some peoples' responses, I don't think it would be workable.

gctest50

Some of the anti-choice ones need to learn to let it go, instead are like :

Fighting Tao

Can Roberts concern be added to the other million raised by the No side since the result was announced? Fair play though. It Only took a week or so for the No side to come up with one last shot.

gctest50

How are they going to keep the money flowing next year ?

Go for the euthanasia campaigning ?

PopePalpatine

gctest50 wrote: »

How are they going to keep the money flowing next year ?

Go for the euthanasia campaigning ?

Defending religious segregation, it's all they have now.

It wasnt me123

Just on RTE news. Leo Varadkar said they could conscientiously object but they must refer onto another gp.

He said it would be like "you're on your own there" and he said Ireland is not going back to those days.

RobertKK

I see it was on the news just there.
New Zealand have a system where doctors who conscientiously object are totally excluded from the abortion process. But it is too hard for our politicians to copy what they did.

RobertKK

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Just on RTE news. Leo Varadkar said they could conscientiously object but they must refer onto another gp.

He said it would be like "you're on your own there" and he said Ireland is not going back to those days.

Leo really just admitted he doesn't understand the concept of conscientious objection by making the doctors be part of the process through referral.
He is saying to doctors they are on their own and it is conscientious objection in name only, reality is where it matters and that doesn't exist if part of the referral system.

Loafing Oaf

RobertKK wrote: »

Leo really just admitted he doesn't understand the concept of conscientious objection by making the doctors be part of the process through referral.
He is saying to doctors they are on their own and it is conscientious objection in name only, reality is where it matters and that doesn't exist if part of the referral system.

My understanding is this is how conscientious objection generally operates internationally: if a doctor is unwilling to provide a particular service he/she is obliged to refer the patient to another medic who will. Open to correction on this though...

Calina

RobertKK wrote: »

Leo really just admitted he doesn't understand the concept of conscientious objection by making the doctors be part of the process through referral.
He is saying to doctors they are on their own and it is conscientious objection in name only, reality is where it matters and that doesn't exist if part of the referral system.

You cannot get pregnant. You will never have a crisis pregnancy. You care more about the feelings of some doctor or other than you do about a pregnant woman. Why is the conscience of a doctor more important to you than the wellbeing of their female patient?

You have sympathy for everyone bar the woman in this scenario.

I really don't care if doctors want to conscientiously object. But they should be telling their female patients up front that they don't want to carry out the range of care that a female may find necessary at certain difficult periods of their life, that they cannot be counted on for physical or mental health support if the patient is pregnant.

I want it to be opt out so that antiabortion doctors have to own their position, own up to their position and make it clear what their position is, publicly.

So that some poor misfortunate woman does not find out the hard way that their doctor is anti abortion and will not refer her to someone who is at a time when they have enough other stresses to be dealing with.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Unless Simon Harris thinks women are very backwards, and can’t use the internet, it should be an opt in for doctors who want to carry out abortions. Not asking doctors opposed to abortion to be part of the referral process instead.

Ignore this is this is a Renua tweet, instead read the article.

https://twitter.com/renuaireland/status/1005823977925808128?s=21

Wouldn’t have an issue there. Opt in for brain surgery too I reckon?

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

If I was a doctor I would not want to be part of a referral service. But you could be sure I would be taking my normal fee if I had to.
That said there is waiting times to see some GPs and I don't want my doctor's time wasted referring women when it can be totally unnecessary by using modern technology to get info.

Well hang on now that’s bull****. Woman goes to her GP and can find out there she’s pregnant. It’s very bollocks if the GP can refuse to give her a full disclosure of information. Referral isn’t endorsement.

Make the procedure opt in sure why not. But referrals? They’re having a laugh. I don’t see that flying.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Leo really just admitted he doesn't understand the concept of conscientious objection by making the doctors be part of the process through referral.
He is saying to doctors they are on their own and it is conscientious objection in name only, reality is where it matters and that doesn't exist if part of the referral system.

No, love. That isn’t what he said.

“The Taoiseach has said the Government would not allow doctors the right to refuse to refer a woman seeking an abortion to another doctor.

Leo Varadkar said that sends out a message that "you're on your own, love" and that was not acceptable in Ireland anymore.

He said that doctors would have a right to conscientiously object to providing a termination of pregnancy, but they would be required to refer patients to other doctors.”

Quite clear he was speaking of women being told they were on their own.

As healthcare providers it makes sense that doctors would need to transmit patient records to the next facility in question for the continuance of care. My own better half for instance has a myriad array of health issues that are cardiovascular in nature. It is crucial in any situation - but surely in pregnancy and/or abortion - for a provider to know that history.

Else how far would this ‘conscientious objection’ Extend?

“Hi yes we need to patient records for xxx sent over please.”

“Sorry no, we are aware your office is an abortion provider and we object to assisting in your facilities at all.” *click*

??? Is that what you want to happen here? What are the limits of this figleaf objection to care? Can they use ethics to lie to patients and send them to the wrong places, give them the wrong info? Deliberately delay their care and drive them out of their window of time to make a choice? As regulated and licensed providers of care, fortunately, the law has these doctors’ nuts in a vice when it comes to some of these worst case outcomes that you see in crisis centers in the states.

In saying all this I certainly expect there will be a crowd-sourced blacklist of doctors who refuse to care for women in due order. Women deserve to know which doctors will provide comprehensive care and which won’t. The bugbear about anarchists assaulting practices that provide abortions is another matter that should be dealt with separately and with harsh legal sentences (that Ireland seems entirely incapable of).

Annabella1

We have the internet nowadays
Nothing stopping a Doctors for choice website having a list of names
I have little doubt that there will be TOP clinics in large urban centres in the future

Fighting Tao

Annabella1 wrote: »

We have the internet nowadays
Nothing stopping a Doctors for choice website having a list of names
I have little doubt that there will be TOP clinics in large urban centres in the future

Why not list the anti-choice doctors instead?

end of the road

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Why not list the anti-choice doctors instead?

i presume for the same reasons that we shouldn't list the pro-choice ones. not to mention 1 possibility as mentioned by someone on the radio today, of an ashers bakery type situation.

Fighting Tao

end of the road wrote: »

i presume for the same reasons that we shouldn't list the pro-choice ones. not to mention 1 possibility as mentioned by someone on the radio today, of an ashers bakery type situation.

I totally agree that neither should be listed. I believe that all doctors should have to offer the medical service.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not even arguing about the abortions themselves.

The referendum result doesn't make conscientious objectors change their minds. There is no compassion from Simon Harris for conscientious objectors if he makes doctors who oppose abortion act against their will by having them a part of the abortion process via referral.
I do see it being a big issue which could easily be avoided.

No one cares.
It's in.
It's happening.
Get over it and move on to the next issue.
You can't stop women's healthcare anymore.

Do you know what the funniest part is? If ye lot hadn't voted in the 8th in the first place, we would not have had this referendum and we'd probably not have abortion on request now. Ye dug yere own graves. And for that, I thank you.

ELM327

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I totally agree that neither should be listed. I believe that all doctors should have to offer the medical service.

Offer it or lose the practice imo

Any report of a GP refusing - remove their GP medical license.

This isnt the 1950s. We've given women their autonomy back. We're not going back to the dark old days of old men telling women what to do.

Igotadose

ELM327 wrote: »

Offer it or lose the practice imo

Any report of a GP refusing - remove their GP medical license.

This isnt the 1950s. We've given women their autonomy back. We're not going back to the dark old days of old men telling women what to do.

The no-bots are in denial. Ireland's changed. Doctors need to get with the program or risk not being doctor's anymore. Cheers to the Taoiseach for making this clear, he was a Doctor himself.