Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

lazygal wrote: »

It requires medical intervention.
Pregnancy imposes a huge toll on my body. If I need an abortion to avoid the toll that's a medical matter. Its just silly to pretend otherwise.

No, I can't agree.

Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood. The UK's absurd and hypocritical abortion legislation requires all abortions to be documented as justified by medical concerns, because heaven forbid that we should proceed on the basis that a woman has a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to dress it up as a response to a medical problem in order to access one. So she has to conceal the reasons for her choice behind a token medical certificate, and by making her do that we can communicate to her that she should be properly ashamed of her non-medical choice.

I think this is one of the worst features of the British sysem and I don't think it's a characteristic that we should be seeking to mirror in our own arrangements (as you can possibly tell).

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I can't agree.

Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood. The UK's absurd and hypocritical abortion legislation requires all abortions to be documented as justified by medical concerns, because heaven forbid that we should proceed on the basis that a woman has a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to dress it up as a response to a medical problem in order to access one. So she has to conceal the reasons for her choice behind a token medical certificate, and by making her do that we can communicate to her that she should be properly ashamed of her non-medical choice.

I think this is one of the worst features of the British sysem and I don't think it's a characteristic that we should be seeking to mirror in our own arrangements (as you can possibly tell).

Abortion is a medical procedure. It requires medical intervention in the form of pills or surgery. It's just wrong to repeatedly state it isn't medical. It is, if you want it to be safe.
The reasons for abortions are irrelevant. The procedure is a medical matter.

smacl wrote: »

With respect, that is a very narrow definition of medical need that misses out entirely on the notion of preventative medicine. For example, by your definition above, the doctor has no ethical obligation to provide vaccinations such as the 'flu jab, on the basis that the patient isn't actually sick.

Nevertheless, the influenza vaccine is administered in response to a real disease. You may not have it yet, but it's still a response to the disease. I don't think the analogy holds up

smacl wrote: »

Yet people can and do die from not receiving such a vaccination. Similarly, a woman who does wish to carry a pregnancy to term could suffer adverse medical consequences from not receiving the abortion that she seeks, which in extreme cases could even prove fatal and has in the past. The doctors conscientious objection is thus potentially adversely affecting their patients health.

Oh, sure, if there's a genuine concern that continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the woman, abortion would be medical treatment in that circumstance.

But I'm mindful - as you'll note from my post above - that across the water perfectly healthy women who have no medical concerns about pregnancy and who fully intend to become pregnant at another time and carry the child to term are required to document their abortions as undertaken in response to a threat to their health, when in reality their choice is made for entirely different reasons. All women seeking an abortion in the UK have to do this, regardless of the real reasons for their choice. The message is that a woman's choice is shameful, must not be acknowledged or spoken of, and must be dressed up as a medical issue to conceal the unspeakable truth. That's not healthy, and that's not a supportive environment for a woman seeking to make a choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy.

lazygal wrote: »

Abortion is a medical procedure. It requires medical intervention in the form of pills or surgery. It's just wrong to repeatedly state it isn't medical. It is, if you want it to be safe.
The reasons for abortions are irrelevant. The procedure is a medical matter.

Every time somebody takes a pill, is that a medical procedure? Is the reason for taking the pill, or the outcome sought, completely irrelevant?

aloyisious

@Peregrinus: Re this: My mistake. I should have made it clear mine [copy below] was in reference to the part of one of yours mentioning pay in respect to a doctor getting an unwanted involvement in abortion work though a secondary action without intent. It seemed to me that as his/her patients fees pay the wages of the clinic staff so if the staff followed their own personal ethics on abortion contrary to those of the refusing Dr, there was [however unintentional] an involvement by the Dr in abortion. In any case [IMO] this debate between us about a Dr's secondary unintended involvement in something contrary to his/her ethics is secondary to the thread debate on the right of a/any pregnant woman to access abortion being the issue as it's a tangential "debate".

Originally Posted by aloyisious
If one was to take your thesis seriously to any of its conceivable endings, one might say the doctor refusing the service requested by the woman should take care to ensure the woman leaves the building in which he/she works to ensure no member of the staff there talk to the woman in case they provide abortion referral info to the woman or even arrange a lift for her in case it takes her to another doctor who would provide her with the service she asked the refusing doctor for. I'm thinking that the staff are employees of the doctors clinic and paid by the clinics, all of the earning for the clinic come from it's patients fees for the doctors services.

This is not taking "my thesis" seriously at all, aloyisius. I've already made the point that conscience is personal. If "my thesis" is that we cannot force the doctor to act against his conscience, then surely the implication is the reverse of what you say; the doctor equally cannot force his colleagues, co-workers, employees to act against their consciences?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Every time somebody takes a pill, is that a medical procedure? Is the reason for taking the pill, or the outcome sought, completely irrelevant?

Of course taking medicine is a medical matter.

You're trying to tie yourself up in knots to explain something that isn't true. Abortion is a medical matter. We shouldn't dress it up as some social issue.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Every time somebody takes a pill, is that a medical procedure? Is the reason for taking the pill, or the outcome sought, completely irrelevant?

Peregrinus, please point to a single medical organisation that defines abortion in the way you do.
Otherwise, your claim is your own opinion and nothing more.

It's disappointing that you are now reverting to the same tactics as End of the road and ignoring awkward questions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I can't agree.

Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood. The UK's absurd and hypocritical abortion legislation requires all abortions to be documented as justified by medical concerns, because heaven forbid that we should proceed on the basis that a woman has a right to an abortion, and shouldn't have to dress it up as a response to a medical problem in order to access one. So she has to conceal the reasons for her choice behind a token medical certificate, and by making her do that we can communicate to her that she should be properly ashamed of her non-medical choice.

I think this is one of the worst features of the British sysem and I don't think it's a characteristic that we should be seeking to mirror in our own arrangements (as you can possibly tell).

Please answer this, if it isn't a medical procedure, what exactly is it?
All I see is you refuting the fact yet offering no suggestion of what you actually think it is.
Whether the abortion sis "needed" or not, it is still a medical procedure. Please explain what it is, if it isn't that.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, better, you could equally have a public register of doctors who do provide abortions, thus neatly avoiding the issue of referrals in the first place.

Ah yes, and then we'll supplying all the self righteous No voters with a comprehensive list of exactly which GP offices to picket and protest outside, not only distressing women during a sensitive time, but also bothering patients who are visiting the surgery who don't require abortion services.

What could possibly go wrong, especially when we think back to the lovely classy giant posters outside the Dublin maternity hospitals just a few months back.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ah yes, and then we'll supplying all the self righteous No voters with a comprehensive list of exactly which GP offices to picket and protest outside, not only distressing women during a sensitive time, but also bothering patients who are visiting the surgery who don't require abortion services.

What could possibly go wrong, especially when we think back to the lovely classy giant posters outside the Dublin maternity hospitals just a few months back.

The ICBR. Lovely bunch to see outside Holles Street after having amniocentesis carried out. Couldn't care less about pregnant people, just obsessed with the foetus.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I'm mindful - as you'll note from my post above - that across the water perfectly healthy women who have no medical concerns about pregnancy and who fully intend to become pregnant at another time and carry the child to term are required to document their abortions as undertaken in response to a threat to their health, when in reality their choice is made for entirely different reasons. All women seeking an abortion in the UK have to do this, regardless of the real reasons for their choice. The message is that a woman's choice is shameful, must not be acknowledged or spoken of, and must be dressed up as a medical issue to conceal the unspeakable truth. That's not healthy, and that's not a supportive environment for a woman seeking to make a choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy.

That's not relevant to the point at hand. If the woman has decided for whatever reason to have an abortion, she clearly has a medical need. The decision is hers, not the doctors, yet by refusing to deal with her medical need, or providing a referral, the doctor is in effect trying to influence her decision. The doctor is withholding care based on philosophical differences, which is clearly unethical.

Let me take a step back. We're arguing about definitions of "abortion", "medical procedure", "medical issue", etc. But arguments about definitions are basically sterile, because we can define words and terms however we like.

So, instead, lets ask ourselves "what's the nature of a doctor's ethical obligation to his patient?" And I think we can all agree on at least this much; if you're ill, or injured, or disabled, or wish to avoid illness, injury or disability, the doctor has a duty to provide appropriate treatment.

The issue here is that pregnancy is not an illness, injury or disability. Nor is giving birth. Nor is parenthood.

There are some cases where pregnancy poses a risk of illness, injury or disability, such that a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy. I've already recognised those and said they deserve separate consideration. I'm dealing here with cases where a woman is not concerned about a risk of illness, injury or disability attendant upon pregnancy, but wants an abortion for other reasons. What those reasons are is unimportant. They're good enough for her; that's all that matters. Nobody else has any business passing judgment about them.

Right. What is the nature of a doctor's obligation to her?

I don't think we can argue that, because abortion in other circumstances or for another woman would be a treatment for or prophylactic against illness, injury or disability, he has the same obligations to her as he would have in those circumstances. The logic of that is that if someone wishes to take an otherwise therapeutic drug for, say, recreational reasons, the doctor has the same ethical obligation to assist them as he does to someone who wants it for therapeutic reasons. Or that if someone wants to amputate a healthy limb or remove a healthy organ or healthy tissue, the doctor has the same obligation to them as he would have to someone wanting a therapeutic amputation.

And that, I think, helps us to identify the scope of the doctor's ethical obligation. The doctor has an obligation to provide, or assist you in obtaining, treatment which is therapeutic for you. He doesn't have an ethical obligation to you to provide, or assist in obtaining, treatment which isn't therapeutic for you, even if the same treatment might be therapeutic for someone else, or for you in different circumstances. He may of course choose to do that, assuming that the treatment is lawful, but I struggle to see why the law should impose an obligation on him to do so. If there's no illness, injury or disability to be treated or averted, what right have we to impose on his conscience simply because he is a doctor?

You're arguing that.
Most of the rest of us recognise that denying medical care to someone isn't acceptable. And people should know who's going to deny them medical care so they can avoid them.
Hardly that complicated.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let me take a step back. We're arguing about definitions of "abortion", "medical procedure", "medical issue", etc. But arguments about definitions are basically sterile, because we can define words and terms however we like.

No, you're they one saying our definition is in error and that abortion isn't a medical procedure so that doctors would have some wiggle room.

Provide an example of a medical organisation that shares your definition.
Just one will do.

Why are you ignoring this very simple question?

Sorry, you totally lost me there when you compared a woman seeking an abortion to therapeutic amputation.

If a woman is seeking a legal medical procedure, regardless of the reason she is seeking it, and a doctor is unwilling to provide that service, that doctor absolutely SHOULD be legally obliged to refer her to a doctor who will.
That's what it boils down to.

Let us not forget that had the Love Boats side won, there would be absolutely no concessions made for the (many, many) Obstetricians, Gynaes, GPs, Midwives and other medical staff who advocated a Yes vote, based on how they felt they couldn't adequately care for their patients with the 8th in place.
I can't imagine the No side would give a rats ass about THEIR consciences if this were the other way around.

Minister Harris made it clear that referrals would be enforced in his proposals before the referendum.
The Yes side won.
This indicates that the majority of the country are in favour of these referrals being mandatory.

If a doctor cannot provide a referral for what will be a legal, medical procedure, they simply shouldn't be practicing medicine.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think we can argue that, because abortion in other circumstances or for another woman would be a treatment for or prophylactic against illness, injury or disability, he has the same obligations to her as he would have in those circumstances. The logic of that is that if someone wishes to take an otherwise therapeutic drug for, say, recreational reasons, the doctor has the same ethical obligation to assist them as he does to someone who wants it for therapeutic reasons. Or that if someone wants to amputate a healthy limb or remove a healthy organ or healthy tissue, the doctor has the same obligation to them as he would have to someone wanting a therapeutic amputation.

The problem with this line of argument is that the doctor isn't in a position to know the long term damage that will be caused to their patient by trying to force them to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. This is after all what denying an abortion or referral to abortion amounts to. It is not comparable to denying access to a recreational drug or a cosmetic amputation in any sense. The woman, who is after all the doctors patient, could suffer severely here, both physically and mentally, through the doctor's prejudice. I could understand a conscientious objection where the doctor referred the woman onwards, but refusing this as her doctor is an attempt to interfere with her chosen course of action though denial of care.

While I accept that any doctor might not wish to publish their position on abortion either way, they should most certainly make all their female patients aware of the fact that they would neither assist with an abortion nor provide a referral to another doctor to so. The conscientious objection is after all the doctor's issue and not the patient's.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Now you are simply denying reality again.

Your side, the no side lost in a land side. Your side had less votes. By definition you are in the minority.
You lost hard.

And again the people who opposed gay marriage and divorce claimed the exact same stuff you are.
They still believe that gay marriage and divorce are going to destroy society. They thought there was plenty of reason to oppose them too.
And like you they have trouble showing how society will suffer, and like you will be, they are still waiting for that to happen.

They, like your side are just no longer worth considering.

Your tactics didn't work. They aren't going to work more after you lost.
Maybe try something else besides lying and ignoring stuff...

voting to repeal the 8th is not evidence that the pro-life view is in that much of a minority, given a number on the pro-life side also agreed the 8th needed to go. we didn't lose hard because for us to do so, there would have had to have been a vote on abortion as well and for that to pass in favour of it, which there wasn't. we know gay marriage and divorce cause no problems what soever. we know abortion on demand does cause some societal problems.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please answer this, if it isn't a medical procedure, what exactly is it?
All I see is you refuting the fact yet offering no suggestion of what you actually think it is.
Whether the abortion sis "needed" or not, it is still a medical procedure. Please explain what it is, if it isn't that.

it would be along the lines of a cosmetic treatment. wanted but not actually needed to treat anything.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ah yes, and then we'll supplying all the self righteous No voters with a comprehensive list of exactly which GP offices to picket and protest outside, not only distressing women during a sensitive time, but also bothering patients who are visiting the surgery who don't require abortion services.

What could possibly go wrong, especially when we think back to the lovely classy giant posters outside the Dublin maternity hospitals just a few months back.

nothing as nobody is going to waste their time protesting outside a gp, when as you said, there will be people visiting for all sorts of reasons. they won't know who is having an abortion, so what would be the point. if there was to be any sort of protesting and picketing, the pro-life doctors are more likely to get it,

lazygal wrote: »

You're arguing that.
Most of the rest of us recognise that denying medical care to someone isn't acceptable. And people should know who's going to deny them medical care so they can avoid them.
Hardly that complicated.

they aren't being denied medical care though. i can't imagine any doctor refusing to provide an abortion service where there is a genuine threat to the mother's life.

end of the road wrote: »

voting to repeal the 8th is not evidence that the pro-life view is in that much of a minority, given a number on the pro-life side also agreed the 8th needed to go. we didn't lose hard because for us to do so, there would have had to have been a vote on abortion as well and for that to pass in favour of it, which there wasn't. we know gay marriage and divorce cause no problems what soever. we know abortion on demand does cause some societal problems.

Which problems exactly?

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't being denied medical care though. i can't imagine any doctor refusing to provide an abortion service where there is a genuine threat to the mother's life.

All pregnancy can threaten life. Abortion is medical care.
Some doctors opposed the POLDP Act.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood.

Really? because if women were perfectly OK with going along with the pregnancy they could offer the baby for adoption, and there's no point going through that debate again. So unless you have a citation for this, I'm going to regard it as mere opinion, and an ill-informed one at that.

There's no right to abortion on demand in UK law, so their law is irrelevant to our debate as our law will have an explicit right to abortion on demand.

King Mob wrote: »

So again, why not just have these doctors make it clear and open that they will not provide abortion services and will not provide referrals to doctors who will?

But what happens when Dr. Abortionist down the road rings up Dr. Pious and asks for his patient Ms. Demeanour's medical records? Can he refuse that? It's a black-and-white patient safety issue, so I'd say no. So is Dr. Pious facilitating an abortion by providing the medical records needed for it to go ahead safely? Or should patient safety take a back seat to the religious notions of certain doctors?

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, you totally lost me there when you compared a woman seeking an abortion to therapeutic amputation.

how so. that is what abortion on demand effectively is similar to. it's not a treatment for an illness or disease or disability.

SusieBlue wrote: »

If a woman is seeking a legal medical procedure, regardless of the reason she is seeking it, and a doctor is unwilling to provide that service, that doctor absolutely SHOULD be legally obliged to refer her to a doctor who will.
That's what it boils down to.

if there is a genuine medical reason, then sure. if it's because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant or something similar, then there is absolutely no reason or need for a legal obligation to refer.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Let us not forget that had the Love Boats side won, there would be absolutely no concessions made for the (many, many) Obstetricians, Gynaes, GPs, Midwives and other medical staff who advocated a Yes vote, based on how they felt they couldn't adequately care for their patients with the 8th in place.
I can't imagine the No side would give a rats ass about THEIR consciences if this were the other way around.

that's ultimately irrelevant. the pro-choice campaign operated on the idea that some how they were better then pro-life and more understanding and believed in choice. yet because of some supposed what maybe's that there is no evidence they would even happen, a pro-life doctor should be forced to have something to do with the killing of an unborn life. pro-choice when it suits i guess, as i always suspected.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Minister Harris made it clear that referrals would be enforced in his proposals before the referendum.

minister harris thankfully doesn't get to "force" anything on anyone unless enough in his party actually agree to it, for which if they don't, it won't be much of an issue as ff and fg will remain the 2 dominant parties in ireland, abortion won't be an election issue.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Yes side won.
This indicates that the majority of the country are in favour of these referrals being mandatory.

well no, it actually doesn't. people voted yes to repealing the 8th for all sorts of reasons. we can argue (as i did) that they defacto voted for whatever proposals the government put forward, an argument i put forward on the basis i knew the government would try to force this legislation through without the dail debating it, but ultimately the people didn't actually vote for the specific legislation, as defacto is not actual.

SusieBlue wrote: »

If a doctor cannot provide a referral for what will be a legal, medical procedure, they simply shouldn't be practicing medicine.

of course they should. the fact they may disagree with the taking of an unborn life doesn't change their ability to be a good doctor.

end of the road wrote: »

it would be along the lines of a cosmetic treatment. wanted but not actually needed to treat anything..

An abortion is in no way similar to a cosmetic treatment. Cop yourself on.
You have no idea of other peoples circumstances.
Stop acting as if you are some sort of higher authority that can determine whether an abortion is "needed" or not when you don't have a clue.

nothing as nobody is going to waste their time protesting outside a gp, when as you said, there will be people visiting for all sorts of reasons. they won't know who is having an abortion, so what would be the point. if there was to be any sort of protesting and picketing, the pro-life doctors are more likely to get it,

Pretty much everyone attending the Dublin maternity hospitals were doing so for non abortion related services (remember, abortion was still illegal), many of whom had no doubt received devastating news about a much wanted pregnancy.
But that didn't stop your pals from picketing outside and upsetting everyone.
They didn't care that they were hurting people, they just did it anyway.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, particularly after hearing that the Love Boaters at the Ploughing championships were handing out plastic fetuses to small children, that they would picket the clinic of a Pro-Choice GP clinic.

they aren't being denied medical care though. i can't imagine any doctor refusing to provide an abortion service where there is a genuine threat to the mother's life.

Please explain what an abortion is if it isn't medical care. Please provide a link to back up your claim that it isn't medical care.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

voting to repeal the 8th is not evidence that the pro-life view is in that much of a minority, given a number on the pro-life side also agreed the 8th needed to go. we didn't lose hard because for us to do so, there would have had to have been a vote on abortion as well and for that to pass in favour of it, which there wasn't. we know gay marriage and divorce cause no problems what soever. we know abortion on demand does cause some societal problems.

Opponents of divorce argued very strongly that it caused significant societal problems, particularly relating to the upbringing of children, although to what extent they actually believed their own rhetoric is pretty debatable.

end of the road wrote: »

voting to repeal the 8th is not evidence that the pro-life view is in that much of a minority, given a number on the pro-life side also agreed the 8th needed to go.

Lol, wow. That is the most spin I've ever seen in my life.:rolleyes:

end of the road wrote: »

we know gay marriage and divorce cause no problems what soever. we know abortion on demand does cause some societal problems.

Again, "abortion on demand" is a term you've plucked out of the air.
Secondly, the people who oppose gay marriage and divorce do claim that they cause problems.
Thirdly, I'm not going to bother to ask you to explain these problems or provide evidence for such because you're just going to bravely ignore the question anyway, so your claim here is being filed away with the anti-gay marriage and anti divorce guys.

Fourth, you again have ignored points you can't address. If you are going to engage with me, do so fully. Do not address parts of my points and expect me to forget about them.
Again, you are showing yourself up in the worst way.

Loafing Oaf

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, particularly after hearing that the Love Boaters at the Ploughing championships were handing out plastic fetuses to small children, that they would picket the clinic of a Pro-Choice GP clinic.

I predict that any protests at GP surgeries will be small-scale and sporadic and will quickly melt away as the protestors realize they're not making a blind bit of difference.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But what happens when Dr. Abortionist down the road rings up Dr. Pious and asks for his patient Ms. Demeanour's medical records? Can he refuse that? It's a black-and-white patient safety issue, so I'd say no. So is Dr. Pious facilitating an abortion by providing the medical records needed for it to go ahead safely? Or should patient safety take a back seat to the religious notions of certain doctors?

I think in this case, it would be that the person has been forced to switch doctors. Nominally, the new doctor would just be asking for the records, but not referring to what purpose. If the old doctor refused to cooperate because he suspected that the patient was seeking an abortion, then this would be a clear cut case of unethical behavior and that doctor should be turfed out of their practice.
I doubt even Peregrinus would argue otherwise there.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I predict that any protests at GP surgeries will be small-scale and sporadic and will quickly melt away as the protestors realize they're not making a blind bit of difference.

The ICBR uses protest footage to raise money. If the money they got now will be used to fund Roe repeal attempts in the USA I can't imagine they'll keep up the activity here.