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

gctest50

Igotadose wrote: »

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.

be a pity if someone made a few of these dioramas with the woman in a Dublin GAA top and Jabbas face replaced with someone elses

gctest50

needs someone who can actually use photoshop :

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

Where did I post about stopping it? You are just making up arguments about my posts yesterday that never existed in them. So get over it, people can discuss how it is implemented, or is implementation trying to stop it which is your claim given how irrelevant your post is towards mine.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Where did I post about stopping it? You are just making up arguments about my posts yesterday that never existed in them. So get over it, people can discuss how it is implemented, or is implementation trying to stop it which is your claim given how irrelevant your post is towards mine.

67% Yes.
Your day is gone.

dudara

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.

I disagree. I do think doctors should be allowed to conscientiously object. It’s important that people uphold their moral principles. That should not impede however in someone’s medical care. Therefore, they must be open and transparent about it, and they must refer the patient onwards.

ELM327

dudara wrote: »

I disagree. I do think doctors should be allowed to conscientiously object. It’s important that people uphold their moral principles. That should not impede however in someone’s medical care. Therefore, they must be open and transparent about it, and they must refer the patient onwards.

That's just pandering IMO.

What about doctors that are jehovah's witnesses? Do they refuse blood tests or blood donation/transfusion?
What about doctors that are homophobic on the grounds of morality derived from religion. Do we allow them not treat homosexuals?

I'm sorry but the last thing a woman needs in a crisis situation is judgment from her GP. No "conscientious" objections allowed, mandatory and enforced provisions of abortifacients as requested and approved by the people and (Soon) the houses of the Oireachtas.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

67% Yes.
Your day is gone.

Why are you still going on about the referendum, we have moved on from there.

No electioneering in the headline, stop fighting the referendum. Noty my problem if you can't comprehend that conscientious objection is a real issue and that has Zero, that is 0% to do with the result as a Yes result didn't change minds of conscientious objectors.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Why are you still going on about the referendum, we have moved on from there.

No electioneering in the headline, stop fighting the referendum. Noty my problem if you can't comprehend that conscientious objection is a real issue and that has Zero, that is 0% to do with the result as a Yes result didn't change minds of conscientious objectors.

any answer to the actual points made? No?

ELM327 wrote: »

That's just pandering IMO.

What about doctors that are jehovah's witnesses? Do they refuse blood tests or blood donation/transfusion?
What about doctors that are homophobic on the grounds of morality derived from religion. Do we allow them not treat homosexuals?

I'm sorry but the last thing a woman needs in a crisis situation is judgment from her GP. No "conscientious" objections allowed, mandatory and enforced provisions of abortifacients as requested and approved by the people and (Soon) the houses of the Oireachtas.

FrancieBrady

RobertKK wrote: »

Why are you still going on about the referendum, we have moved on from there.

No electioneering in the headline, stop fighting the referendum. Noty my problem if you can't comprehend that conscientious objection is a real issue and that has Zero, that is 0% to do with the result as a Yes result didn't change minds of conscientious objectors.

Employees of the state have been told that they can CO to their hearts content, but they cannot CO to referring a woman in crisis to somebody who will help her.

dudara

ELM327 wrote: »

That's just pandering IMO.

What about doctors that are jehovah's witnesses? Do they refuse blood tests or blood donation/transfusion?

I don’t know what Jehovah’s Witness doctors can or can’t do. Does anyone here know? It would be interesting.

What about doctors that are homophobic on the grounds of morality derived from religion. Do we allow them not treat homosexuals?

Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is illegal and rightly so

I'm sorry but the last thing a woman needs in a crisis situation is judgment from her GP. No "conscientious" objections allowed, mandatory and enforced provisions of abortifacients as requested and approved by the people and (Soon) the houses of the Oireachtas.

A lot of people, some doctors included, believe abortion is morally wrong. And that’s not going to change. Doctors do not have to provide all services (a lot of GPs don’t do blood tests anymore) and if a doctor doesn’t want to offer abortion, then I’m OK with that as long as they are clear, transparent and don’t impede the woman in any way.

RobertKK

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473038/

Article above looks at Conscientious Objection (CO) in England, Italy, Norway and Portugal.

In New Zealand in 2010, it was ruled by the High Court there that referral for an abortion compromised the conscientious objection of doctors. So doctors in NZ no longer have to refer women if they conscientiously object to abortion.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

any answer to the actual points made? No?

That has nothing to do with abortion, so you are arguing something else entirely. You want to go off topic since you can't stick to abortion and how it is provided.

erica74

dudara wrote: »

I disagree. I do think doctors should be allowed to conscientiously object. It’s important that people uphold their moral principles. That should not impede however in someone’s medical care. Therefore, they must be open and transparent about it, and they must refer the patient onwards.

I don't know. I don't think any doctor should be allowed to put their moral principles above healthcare. If you allow a doctor to put their moral principles first, where does that stop? Is it only GPs who are allowed refuse based on their moral principles or can doctors in hospitals refuse to perform surgical abortions based on their moral principles?

I think any sort of exemption will just lead to a delay in care and we have enough disasters around women's healthcare in Ireland.
Let's say Mary goes to her GP seeking an abortion, Mary's GP refuses based on their moral principles and says they will refer Mary on, the online referral system is down so Mary's GP plans to do it later once the system is back working again, Mary's GP subsequently forgets, Mary rings a few days later and reminds her GP, who then refers Mary to a GP in another town, there's a slight delay offering Mary an appointment and uhoh, the 12 week period has passed. Where does this leave Mary?
Bear in mind that there can be a delay between Mary getting pregnant and finding out she's pregnant. There can also be a delay between Mary finding out she's pregnant, deciding she wants an abortion and actually making an appointment with her GP. Then a delay getting an appointment with the GP. Mary might not want to tell her GP's receptionist over the phone that she's pregnant and wants an abortion so she has to actually see the GP before the GP realises she's pregnant and wants an abortion.
We're already dealing with quite a restrictive period - 12 weeks - I believe it's absolutely essential we not add another hurdle in terms of time watching.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

That has nothing to do with abortion, so you are arguing something else entirely. You want to go off topic since you can't stick to abortion and how it is provided.

Distract!
Divert!
NO!
Shock photos!

erica74 wrote: »

I don't know. I don't think any doctor should be allowed to put their moral principles above healthcare. If you allow a doctor to put their moral principles first, where does that stop? Is it only GPs who are allowed refuse based on their moral principles or can doctors in hospitals refuse to perform surgical abortions based on their moral principles?

I think any sort of exemption will just lead to a delay in care and we have enough disasters around women's healthcare in Ireland.
Let's say Mary goes to her GP seeking an abortion, Mary's GP refuses based on their moral principles and says they will refer Mary on, the online referral system is down so Mary's GP plans to do it later once the system is back working again, Mary's GP subsequently forgets, Mary rings a few days later and reminds her GP, who then refers Mary to a GP in another town, there's a slight delay offering Mary an appointment and uhoh, the 12 week period has passed. Where does this leave Mary?
Bear in mind that there can be a delay between Mary getting pregnant and finding out she's pregnant. There can also be a delay between Mary finding out she's pregnant, deciding she wants an abortion and actually making an appointment with her GP. Then a delay getting an appointment with the GP. Mary might not want to tell her GP's receptionist over the phone that she's pregnant and wants an abortion so she has to actually see the GP before the GP realises she's pregnant and wants an abortion.
We're already dealing with quite a restrictive period - 12 weeks - I believe it's absolutely essential we not add another hurdle in terms of time watching.

+1

Yes, we need unrestricted abortions up to12 weeks as we have seen in the heads of bills.
Allowing "conscientious" objections is a restriction and should not be allowed or facilitated.

Once that's in and established, we can look to extend to 24 weeks.

erica74

dudara wrote: »

Doctors do not have to provide all services (a lot of GPs don’t do blood tests anymore) and if a doctor doesn’t want to offer abortion, then I’m OK with that as long as they are clear, transparent and don’t impede the woman in any way.

That's not based on an individual's moral principles though.

Kurtosis

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473038/

Article above looks at Conscientious Objection (CO) in England, Italy, Norway and Portugal.

In New Zealand in 2010, it was ruled by the High Court there that referral for an abortion compromised the conscientious objection of doctors. So doctors in NZ no longer have to refer women if they conscientiously object to abortion.

I'd argue refusing to refer compromises appropriate care for women to a greater extent. Referrals are vital to ensure continuity of care. I hope Ireland takes a different approach to NZ.

Yeah_Right

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473038/

In New Zealand in 2010, it was ruled by the High Court there that referral for an abortion compromised the conscientious objection of doctors. So doctors in NZ no longer have to refer women if they conscientiously object to abortion.

Well that's embarrassing.

In fairness I'd say the vast majority of abortions in NZ are done through Family Planning clinics rather than GPs.

spookwoman

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473038/

Article above looks at Conscientious Objection (CO) in England, Italy, Norway and Portugal.

In New Zealand in 2010, it was ruled by the High Court there that referral for an abortion compromised the conscientious objection of doctors. So doctors in NZ no longer have to refer women if they conscientiously object to abortion.

True but this is not New Zealand.
Regulations in New Zealand require that abortions after 12 weeks gestation be performed in a "licensed institution", which is generally understood to be a hospital. Abortions must be authorised by two doctors (referred to as "certifying consultants" within the legislation), one of whom must be a gynaecologist or obstetrician. However, doctors can refuse to authorise the procedure, in which case the woman must find another doctor and plead her case with them until she has the permission of two doctors, and also a qualified surgeon if neither of those doctors are licensed to perform the operation.

If you want to bring up New Zealand they do allow abortion "if there's a substantial risk that the child would be "seriously handicapped". which is something the no side don't agree with

Yeah_Right

I actually think that abortion is still technically illegal in NZ. Which is a joke. There a re so many loopholes and exceptions that is legal in reality. The No side bringing up NZ and abortion is amusing to me. Abortion is a non-issue in NZ. No one cares. Women have abortions if they want them and everyone gets on with their lives. If a pro-lifer brings it up most people would mutter something about crazies, lunatics, ****ing religious nutters and then get on with their lives.

Graces7

Kurtosis wrote: »

I'd argue refusing to refer compromises appropriate care for women to a greater extent. Referrals are vital to ensure continuity of care. I hope Ireland takes a different approach to NZ.

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)

Hitman3000

Graces7 wrote:

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

Considering some of your comments not a bad idea to drop out.

.......

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.