Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

antiskeptic · 14-06-2018 12:00pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor have I seen anyone attempting to smooth EVERY bump in the road. But the most ridiculous ones that are not warranted, justifiable, helpful or fair certainly are worth addressing and considering alternatives to.

The easiest, most practical way to inform people of abortion services is to list it on a HSE website. They can go straight to the place they need to go to - no unnecessary expense visiting a GP who it turns out doesn't offer the service so as to be referred to one who will.

Dragging unwilling (for whatever reason) GP's into it involves a desire to force everyone to partake in something they don't want to partake in, for the sake of forcing them (for ideological reasons)

Certainly the abortion-practicing doctor should be able to obtain necessary information from the patients GP if the latter doesn't provide the service.

What possible practical use is going to a GP who doesn't provide the service so as to be referred on?

But medical practitioners refusing to offer modern medical procedures or products is not just an issue we can jump to one extreme or the other on. I have SOME sympathy for the arguments about allowing doctors to refuse a prescription, but I would also have strong opinions on what they should be compelled to offer in the form of information and alternatives and referrals and so forth in lieu.

Would you want information delivered to you by someone who doesn't want to deliver it to you - whatever about their adhering to the latter of the delivery law.

Per above: what possible practical gain is there is going to such a doctor for anything?

What I certainly do not subscribe to is the nonsense idea I saw expressed that doctors being compelled to offer a mere referral can be described as being therefore "Doctors who are being compelled to partake in abortion".

It depends on how you view abortion. If you view it as murder then any dealings with it, whatsoever, involve a certain amount of partaking in it. You know someone is going to commit a murder with a gun and, as a gun salesman you aren't partaking when referring them down the road to someone who does sell bump stock devices?

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-06-2018 12:19pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The easiest, most practical way to inform people of abortion services is to list it on a HSE website. They can go straight to the place they need to go to - no unnecessary expense visiting a GP who it turns out doesn't offer the service so as to be referred to one who will.

Just because something is the easiest solution, does not mean it should be the sole solution. It also does not mean it is a good solution.

For example why stop there? Why single out the topic of abortion? Why not list every other service each doctor does or does not do? That would be an interesting database to build, even if it could be maintained in on ongoing basis.

Further your solution is 2 dimensional and does not actually consider the patient. Just because there is one service that a persons doctor does not perform, that does not automatically mean they will want to pick another one from the list. They might still want to go to their own doctor to consider options, the general state of their health, and all the other factors that might go into the decision to abort or not abort. They might then trust their own doctor to offer a referral in a more competent and informed way than merely picking a name of a HSE list.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dragging unwilling (for whatever reason) GP's into it involves a desire to force everyone to partake in something they don't want to partake in, for the sake of forcing them (for ideological reasons)

And as I said above, and I suspected (though my memory was letting me down) it was you I referring to when I wrote it......... I think it is a very dilute and bastardized definition of the word "partake" to include doctors who were compelled to do nothing but provide a referral. Something that do often in any number of other contexts already. Especially if describing it thus for nothing but ideological reasons.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What possible practical use is going to a GP who doesn't provide the service so as to be referred on?

I do it all the time. I trust my doctor and his opinion. He is informed and informative. So when I wish to discuss a condition, or a procedure, or an area I know he himself does not partake in I STILL go to him as my first port of call as to where to proceed from there.

Sometimes people know so little on a subject they do not even know what they do not know. I have had that experience..... where my ignorance of a subject was such that I could not even yet formulate the questions to meaningfully ask about the subject yet. So I went to a trusted more general source of information first who brought me up to a level of knowledge which allowed me to at least formulate the questions and goals for inquiry, so that I could then move on to the more specialized source and have a coherent conversation.

I see no reason why a pregnant woman would be any different. Even if their doctor is not one that provides access to abortion pills, or any other abortion practice....... she might still trust that doctor enough to make it the initial port of call to collate the information and knowledge and recommendations on how to proceed further.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you want information delivered to you by someone who doesn't want to deliver it to you - whatever about their adhering to the latter of the delivery law.

I would want my information delivered to me accurately, from a source I trust. Whether that person is offering that information willingly or not is not a primary concern for me.

If for example I suddenly felt my limb was alien to me and I wanted to chop it off, I would expect my doctor, regardless of how uncomfortable he is, when I approach him to tell me that he can do nothing to actually help me, but still tell me all he knows about Body Identity Disorder, who he can refer me on to for more information, and what he knows about how people choose to treat it directly or indirectly. I could literally not care less how much he actually wants me to have any of that information. I would only care whether he is actually offering it or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It depends on how you view abortion.

No it really does not. It depends solely and entirely on what I think the word "partake" actually means. And to describe as "partake" saying "Sorry I want to have nothing to do with that, but here is the names of some local people who do" is really a complete mangling of that word and any utility it otherwise might have had.

aloyisious · 14-06-2018 12:21pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're not talking about who provides abortions. We're talking about who tells people where they can obtain abortions. That seems to me to be a core function of the HSE, and something they already do in relation to a wide range of services and facilities.

So, my question is, why is that not the right way to let people know where they can obtain abortions? Why must we devise an entirely different system for disseminating this particular information? There is rarely a good reason for reinventing the wheel; is there a good reason in this instance? And, if we must devise another system, why must it be one which depends on on compelling people who have a conscientious objection? Be honest; does that look like a well-designed, well-thought-out system? Is such a system likely to work well, or smoothly, or reliably?

Everyone else who wants a medical service can find details on the HSE website. But it's proposed that women who want abortions should approach their GPs, who may object in principle to abortions, and obtain the information they need, face-to-face, from people who would rather not give it, and who disapprove of the choice they are making. Why would we single out women in need of abortions for this obviously sub-standard information service, which can only involve embarrassment or worse? "Yes, women have the right to choose, but here's a little hurdle some of them have to cross before they can exercise that right!"

Surely it's possible for the GP's surgery/practice reception desk area to have a sign advising people with such queries to their local health or public advice centres for information on who will what for women seeking abortions or terminations [when the Govt plan get's passed into law].

That would take the burden off doctors who are of the "opt-out" frame of mind where it comes to abortion. I'm sure there's an existing "ask auntie" network in every town and village here where contacts and information can be got on whom to visit, and said information based on literature from the HSE or well-women type locations.

recedite · 14-06-2018 12:59pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Probably not for this forum, but do you not agree that if we extend full state services including SW medical cards and housing etc to absolutely everyone who comes to Ireland that we would soon be struggling?

I do, but I mean a certain number should be admitted based on their merit, and our ability to integrate them. The majority should be deported without any delays. Those that are admitted should be encouraged towards full citizenship and treated exactly equally to anyone born here.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 1:04pm

recedite wrote: »

I do, but I mean a certain number should be admitted based on their merit, and our ability to integrate them. The majority should be deported without any delays. Those that are admitted should be encouraged towards full citizenship and treated exactly equally to anyone born here.

Other then possibly being on the same page of The National Party's manifesto, how's this remotely related to the topic? Or even the forum? (We'll pass over "to basic decency or common humanity".)

antiskeptic · 14-06-2018 1:07pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Surely it's possible for the GP's surgery/practice reception desk area to have a sign advising people with such queries to their local health or public advice centres for information on who will what for women seeking abortions or terminations [when the Govt plan get's passed into law].

That would take the burden off doctors who are of the "opt-out" frame of mind where it comes to abortion. I'm sure there's an existing "ask auntie" network in every town and village here where contacts and information can be got on whom to visit, and said information based on literature from the HSE or well-women type locations.

I don't understand where a GP's surgery even comes into it. This isn't the geriatric segment we're dealing with - its people equipped with a smartphone and the ability to Google.

There's a reason why folk want to tag all GP's and it has nothing to do with enabling access to abortion services.

Ockhams Razor. Phone / Google and thats it.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 1:07pm

smacl wrote: »

OT, but interesting that it is also an automatic right if the parents are British but not if they're EU nationals.

Bilateral arrangement, and not wanting any more GFA-related weirdness than necessary. (Short of keeping the previous arrangement, which apparently Popular Sentiment wasn't on board with.)

antiskeptic · 14-06-2018 1:09pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Other then possibly being on the same page of The National Party's manifesto, how's this remotely related to the topic? Or even the forum? (We'll pass over "to basic decency or common humanity".)

Says he with a house full of people in need. Your ability to accomodate stops somewhere short of your front gate. Our border is the nations front gate. Nothing NF about it

ohnonotgmail · 14-06-2018 1:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't understand where a GP's surgery even comes into it. This isn't the geriatric segment we're dealing with - its people equipped with a smartphone and the ability to Google.

There's a reason why folk want to tag all GP's and it has nothing to do with enabling access to abortion services.

Ockhams Razor. Phone / Google and thats it.

so you want to tag all the GPs that do participate? Because we all know how that will end up. If certain doctors are conscientious objectors to abortion they should have no problem making that public knowledge.

smacl · 14-06-2018 1:20pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says he with a house full of people in need. Your ability to accomodate stops somewhere short of your front gate. Our border is the nations front gate. Nothing NF about it

And yet you would force local pregnant women to have babies they don't want into that same situation and expect us to believe your primary motivation is compassion for 'the unborn'? Seems neither reasonable nor compassionate from where I'm sitting.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 1:20pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says he with a house full of people in need. Your ability to accomodate stops somewhere short of your front gate. Our border is the nations front gate. Nothing NF about it

In the timeless words of Newsthump: "We need to look after our own first, say people who would never help anyone"

And I didn't say anything about the NF. No idea what their abortion policy might be. I speak of "our very own" Justin Barrett's nasty little outfit.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 1:25pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you want to tag all the GPs that do participate? Because we all know how that will end up. If certain doctors are conscientious objectors to abortion they should have no problem making that public knowledge.

Every time I hear the term "opt-in scheme", I get visions of red letters daubed on surgery walls, baying mobs of protesters outside, and No-siders with pursed lips -- the better to try to conceal a self-satisfied smirk -- saying "I told you all along it would play into the hands of The Abortion Industry(TM)!"

(And yes, an 'opt-in scheme' is indeed what both the government and the GPs' association are currently saying.)

splinter65 · 14-06-2018 1:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean we're not struggling now?

Oh we’re drowning right now due to hopeless mismanagement of funds, inviting the world to come and join us without any restriction would be catastrophic . Why would it even be a suggestion?

end of the road · 14-06-2018 1:39pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you want to tag all the GPs that do participate? Because we all know how that will end up. If certain doctors are conscientious objectors to abortion they should have no problem making that public knowledge.

they may face the exact same problems it's feared gps who do provide the service would face, if they were listed instead.

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 1:42pm

end of the road wrote: »

they may face the exact same problems it's feared gps who do provide the service would face, if they were listed instead.

Struggling with the "exact same" part of this particular claim. ITYM "clearly entirely different".

Calina · 14-06-2018 1:48pm

end of the road wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you want to tag all the GPs that do participate? Because we all know how that will end up. If certain doctors are conscientious objectors to abortion they should have no problem making that public knowledge.

they may face the exact same problems it's feared gps who do provide the service would face, if they were listed instead.

You spent a chunk of yesterday defending the rights of people to harrass gps and patients where the service is available so bringing up this fear for GPs who don't provide is rank hypocrisy.

Also the pro-choice campaign engaged in nothing like that kind of behaviour during the referendum campaign so stop projecting.

ohnonotgmail · 14-06-2018 1:54pm

end of the road wrote: »

they may face the exact same problems it's feared gps who do provide the service would face, if they were listed instead.

You mean protests by the opposite side designed to intimidate and harass? I think you need to put down the crack pipe.

end of the road · 14-06-2018 2:40pm

Calina wrote: »

You spent a chunk of yesterday defending the rights of people to harrass gps and patients where the service is available

no i did not. i defended people's right to protest. nothing more. i also stated that if they caused actual problems during their protests the gardai already have the facility to deal with them, as they have done so to anyone who caused problems during any protest.

Calina wrote: »

Also the pro-choice campaign engaged in nothing like that kind of behaviour during the referendum campaign.

the pro-life campaign as a whole didn't engage in anything like that kind of behaviour either. a small minority of them did as did a small minority of the yes campaign. you only need to look at parts of this site where a small minority of yes voters engaged in abusing, twisting of what no voters said and more. thankfully a vast majority of yes voters don't want to be associated with that minority as the majority on the pro-life side don't want anything to do with the minority of trouble makers on their side of the debate.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You mean protests by the opposite side designed to intimidate and harass?

doctors who provide the service wouldn't receive such protests in my view. they might receive the odd anti-abortion protester but intimidation and harassment are unlikely.
it's doctors who don't provide the service who would be more likely to receive protests designed to intimidate and harass in my view. even then that would only be from a very very tiny minority who nobody would want anything to do with anyway.

ohnonotgmail · 14-06-2018 2:48pm

end of the road wrote: »

no i did not. i defended people's right to protest. nothing more. i also stated that if they caused actual problems during their protests the gardai already have the facility to deal with them, as they have done so to anyone who caused problems during any protest.

the pro-life campaign as a whole didn't engage in anything like that kind of behaviour either. a small minority of them did as did a small minority of the yes campaign. you only need to look at parts of this site where a small minority of yes voters engaged in abusing, twisting of what no voters said and more. thankfully a vast majority of yes voters don't want to be associated with that minority as the majority on the pro-life side don't want anything to do with the minority of trouble makers on their side of the debate.

doctors who provide the service wouldn't receive such protests in my view. they might receive the odd anti-abortion protester but intimidation and harassment are unlikely.
it's doctors who don't provide the service who would be more likely to receive protests designed to intimidate and harass in my view. even then that would only be from a very very tiny minority who nobody would want anything to do with anyway.

like i said earlier you need to put down the crack pipe. Harassment and intimidation are the stock in trade of the No campaign. You think the people protesting outside maternity hospitals wont turn up at GPs who provide abortion services?

alaimacerc · 14-06-2018 2:51pm

end of the road wrote: »

the pro-life campaign as a whole didn't engage in anything like that kind of behaviour either. a small minority of them did as did a small minority of the yes campaign. you only need to look at parts of this site where a small minority of yes voters engaged in abusing, twisting of what no voters said and more.

You need only look at this site, right enough. This clumsy pivot from the well-documented shameful antics of No, to attempting to portray yourself as the Silent Majority of the, as it turns out, fairly small No minority, would be pretty jaw-dropping. Were it not simply standard fare by this point.

Cabaal · 14-06-2018 4:00pm

end of the road wrote: »

the pro-life campaign as a whole didn't engage in anything like that kind of behaviour either. a small minority of them did as did a small minority of the yes campaign. you only need to look at parts of this site where a small minority of yes voters engaged in abusing, twisting of what no voters said and more. thankfully a vast majority of yes voters don't want to be associated with that minority as the majority on the pro-life side don't want anything to do with the minority of trouble makers on their side of the debate.
.

I suppose no side never used the term murder and neither did you... Which you claimed was the case.

Of course we know your claim was false, much like so many stuff from the no side during this ref.

end of the road · 14-06-2018 4:14pm

Cabaal wrote: »

I suppose no side never used the term murder and neither did you... Which you claimed was the case.

that's correct yes

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course we know your claim was false, much like so many stuff from the no side during this ref.

we don't as it wasn't false. nothing the no side stated was false. the no side were truthful and factual throughout the campaign.

ohnonotgmail · 14-06-2018 4:15pm

end of the road wrote: »

that's correct yes

we don't as it wasn't false. nothing the no side stated was false. the no side were truthful and factual throughout the campaign.

Your posts make Donald Trumps tweets look like a credible source of information.

uptherebels · 14-06-2018 4:17pm

end of the road wrote: »

that's correct yes

we don't as it wasn't false. nothing the no side stated was false. the no side were truthful and factual throughout the campaign.

Apart from all the claims that you yourself refused to provide any evidence for!
Allllllllll truthful of course

Cabaal · 14-06-2018 4:24pm

end of the road wrote: »

that's correct yes

we don't as it wasn't false. nothing the no side stated was false. the no side were truthful and factual throughout the campaign.

You should be at Kilkenny cat laughs next year, you can wear a Donald trump wig.

Your posts have now turned into a farce, you say stuff and then try claim the complete opposite.

PopePalpatine · 14-06-2018 5:11pm

When panto season comes around again, maybe EOTR can find a job leading the "Oh no they aren't!" chants.

Loafing Oaf · 14-06-2018 9:58pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's doctors who don't provide the service who would be more likely to receive protests designed to intimidate and harass in my view.

Seriously? You envisage pro-choice protestors turning up with placards outside the surgeries of conscientious objector GPs?

end of the road · 14-06-2018 10:17pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Seriously? You envisage pro-choice protestors turning up with placards outside the surgeries of conscientious objector GPs?

oh absolutely i believe it's a possibility. i would never rule out such happening.

aloyisious · 14-06-2018 11:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't understand where a GP's surgery even comes into it. This isn't the geriatric segment we're dealing with - its people equipped with a smartphone and the ability to Google.

There's a reason why folk want to tag all GP's and it has nothing to do with enabling access to abortion services.

Ockhams Razor. Phone / Google and thats it.

We are discussing the latest part of the abortion debate here now in relation to how GP's will handle the issue of abortion in respect of their surgery handling, or not handling, clients in respect of abortion under the new law, aren't we?

Quite simply most people go to a GP's service when they have personal medical related matters they seek advice on. I reckon you could agree with that.

I also reckon that most GP's clients will be regular clients [possibly within family-group clientele] who WON'T be sure where the individual GP's stand on the issue of abortion, and how the GP will greet clients who contact them asking for help at a personal level in respect of abortion as a medical matter. Most surgery clients don't discuss their personal medical details with reception staff over phone but with the doctor instead.

I haven't got a clue as to what theory you have in mind about tagging all GP's and as you wrote that it has nothing to do with abortion, it is clearly irrevelant to this debate.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2018 3:55am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just because something is the easiest solution, does not mean it should be the sole solution. It also does not mean it is a good solution.

For example why stop there? Why single out the topic of abortion? Why not list every other service each doctor does or does not do? That would be an interesting database to build, even if it could be maintained in on ongoing basis.

Further your solution is 2 dimensional and does not actually consider the patient. Just because there is one service that a persons doctor does not perform, that does not automatically mean they will want to pick another one from the list. They might still want to go to their own doctor to consider options, the general state of their health, and all the other factors that might go into the decision to abort or not abort. They might then trust their own doctor to offer a referral in a more competent and informed way than merely picking a name of a HSE list.

The patient will be perfectly free to go to her own GP for advice/consultation if she wishes. And a GP who is not willing to provide the procedure will be perfectly free to refer to another GP who does. Nobody is suggesting that this should be forbidden. The question is whether it should be compelled.

If it is to be compelled, then there has to be a database of GPs who provide the service, for how else are GPs who don't provide it to know those who do? But if such a database exists, why should patients not be able to consult it directly, if they wish to, thus avoiding the time, expense, inconvenience and possible embarrassment of consulting a GP who may have a conscientious objection to abortion? And if patients can consult it directly, where is the need to compel GPs who have a conscientious objection to doing so to consult the database and relay the information in it to the patient face-to-face? I remain unclear as to what problem is sought to be solved by compelling the participation of conscientious objectors.

Obviously women in need of abortions should have ready access to information about where they can get it. Equally obviously, a system for disseminating this information which relies on compelling the participation of people who have a conscientious objection to participating is not a good system. It has an elevated risk of not working smoothly, or well, or reliably; it involves compelling reluctant encounters that can only be at best embarrassing for both parties; it is burdensome to the consciences of at least some people. In what world is this considered to be a good system? And in what world do pro-choice advocates favour a sub-standard system to serve women in need of abortions?

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-06-2018 6:10am

Most of what you wrote there is exactly what I am saying myself. But as I said A) Just because one solution is the "easiest" that does not in any way mean it is A) the best or

the only solution we should implement. Further if we are to maintain a database of services a given doctor does or does not perform then A) why target it solely at abortion specifically and

who is to maintain such a database and how in order to maintain it's accuracy and it's being up to date and current.

None of that is show stopper stuff of course, but certainly questions worth asking and even more worth answering before any solution is implemented. I certainly would love the idea that I could input criteria into a database and be returned a list of the doctors that best suit my case.

Alas the average joe on the street often have issues they would not know how to input in the first place, which is one good answer to your question of "why should patients not be able to consult it directly". Quite often, and I have done this several times myself too and I consider myself relatively informed and educated on medical matters compared to the average, I have to go to my trusted GP in order to obtain enough knowledge to even know what it is I am looking for in seeking the next doctor.

And I know what the public can be like. They use such a database, get a recommendation that is false due to their own error or ignorance, they go to the doctor who turns out not to be able to help them, and now they want to complain, or even take legal action, against the people maintaining the database that THEY blame for their own error.

As I said I have some sympathy for the conscientious objection argument. Probably more than most. Especially when it comes to actually providing a procedure. But when it comes to prescription medicine I have less sympathy because I do not see the doctor as providing that medicine. Rather I see a doctor as someone providing knowledge ABOUT that medicine and mediating access to it. And the sharing of factual knowledge is not something I have much conscientious objection sympathy for. All a doctor should be doing is evaluating the facts about a given medicine, evaluating facts about a given patient, and deciding that yes the medicine is applicable in that case, or is not applicable due to some medical factor like allergies or heart issues or or or....

If doctors do not, due to conscientious objection, want to actually perform a surgical abortion then I have a lot of sympathy for that. If a doctor due to conscientious objection does not want to write a prescription..... not so much.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2018 6:44am

I have to say that I don’t buy the distinction between providing a surgical abortion and writing a prescription for a pharmaceutical abortion. In both cases you are using your medical expertise/experience/qualifications to assist in bringing about the same outcome. If somebody has an objection to the outcome, it’s the outcome they object to; not the methods used to achieve it. I find it hard to say that we should accommodate their objection in one case, but not in the other.

In this case, of course, we’re talking not about either performing a surgical abortion or writing a script for a pharmaceutical abortion, but simply about referring someone to a practitioner who will do one or other of these things. Still, people who have a conscientious objection to those things are quite likely also to have a conscientious objection to the referral, so we have to work out what to do about it.

I take your point about the practical issues that arise out of maintaining a database. (Although those practical issues don’t seem to have prevented the HSE from maintaining its current publicly-available database of health facilities, and if anyone has sued them for, e.g., having a listing for a dental practice that had in fact closed, I haven’t read about it.)

But the practical issues arise either way. We need a database that patients can consult or we need a database that objecting GPs can consult but, either way, we need a database. We just have to deal with the practical issues.

And I completely get that a woman contemplating an abortion wants more than just a name and address; she wants to be able to consider her options; to understand what an abortion involves; to look at all this in the light of her own medical history/condition, etc.

Still, I can’t get around the fact that she’d probably rather be getting this from a GP who was willing to offer the service, who didn’t have a conscientious objection, and who she wouldn’t have reason to suspect might be judging her adversely for raising the issue. (Not that I am suggesting that an objecting GP would necessarily make such a judgment. But you can see how the woman involved might worry about that.) So I see the database as a gateway to the services - the full range of services, not just the actual abortion - that women require, not an alternative to the services.

Women should be able to find a GP practice or other facility that is abortion-friendly, so to speak. They shouldn’t have to negotiate their way there via their own GP, if they don’t choose to. And they especially shouldn’t have to negotiate their way there via a GP who they fear is opposed to what they want to do.

The way I see it working, any woman who cares to can check the database to see whether her usual or nearest GP practice provides abortion services. If it does, grand. If not, she can go there anyway, if she wants to seek their advice, or (more likely) she can go directly to another GP practice which indicates that it provides the services.

But, once you put in place a system whereby women can do this, the argument for saying that it’s necessary to impose an obligation on GPs to refer them looks very thin. Why would we compel somebody to do something they find conscientiously objectionable when we’ve already taken steps to ensure that they don’t need to do it for women’s needs to be met?

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-06-2018 6:54am

I think the issue there is that my distinction is not predicated on the outcome. Which might fuel your not buying the distinction if you are parsing it on a point I never mediated it on?

Rather I am mediating the distinction based not on outcome, but on both the involvement and the role of a medical professional. When it comes to a procedure, the doctor is very much involved in that procedure. However when prescribing a medicine the doctor has nothing to do with the taking of that medicine, but of mediating access to it, and providing knowledge and expertise ABOUT it.

For me (and I have to stress I am talking about ME and my own impressions of what a doctor should be) a doctor writing a prescription should be A) providing information and expertise about what the drug is and does and

using their expertise to evaluate how the patient fits to that drug in terms of risks and accuracy of application.

What a patient does with an antibiotic once prescribed should have nothing to do with the doctor for example. If however the doctors expertise suggests the patient should not take it (allergy? conflict with other medicines?) or it does not fit the patients actual situation (the patient has a virus, not a bacterial infection) (s)he should simply not prescribe it.

So the doctor should be evaluating the individual patient, the individual drug, and the confluence of the two. Is the drug applicable in a given case, or not. If it is, then a prescription should follow. If not, not. For me therefore I see no reason to lend any sympathy to, or pander to, conscientious objection in that case.

As for having to "negotiate their way there via their own GP"..... I do not think people HAVE To do this. But many people WANT to do it. As I said to AntiSkeptic above many people want their own GP as a first port of call. Not merely for a referal, but quite often we the public are too ignorant to even know what questions to ask on a given subject. And many of us trust our own GP. So we WANT, not need or have to, go to our own GP to break things down for us, arm us with the knowledge we need to move forward.... or even just the questions we need to go to the next doctor armed with to get that knowledge.......... and we trust our GP to do that. I honestly do not care if my own GP offers, or even wants to offer, a given thing. I just care that if I need that given thing, and I need the first step knowledge on the road to getting that thing........ I trust him to start me on that path rather than my first step being to start a dialog from the outset with a complete stranger.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2018 7:27am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

. . . As for having to "negotiate their way there via their own GP"..... I do not think people HAVE To do this. But many people WANT to do it. As I said to AntiSkeptic above many people want their own GP as a first port of call. Not merely for a referal, but quite often we the public are too ignorant to even know what questions to ask on a given subject. And many of us trust our own GP. So we WANT, not need or have to, go to our own GP to break things down for us, arm us with the knowledge we need to move forward.... or even just the questions we need to go to the next doctor armed with to get that knowledge.......... and we trust our GP to do that. I honestly do not care if my own GP offers, or even wants to offer, a given thing. I just care that if I need that given thing, and I need the first step knowledge on the road to getting that thing........ I trust him to start me on that path rather than my first step being to start a dialog from the outset with a complete stranger.

And that's fine. Nobody is suggesting that you should be prevented from consulting your own GP, from seeking treatment by him, or from seeking his recommendation as to where else you might obtain treatment. Nor is there any suggestion that the GP should be prevented from offering you advice, treatment or referrals.

The issue is whether he should be obliged to assist you in bringing about an outcome who which he has a conscientious objection. And while I appreciate that you may not analyse the ethics of the situation in terms of outcomes, it's his conscientious problem we are addressing, not yours. If he has a problem with the outcome, and an objection to assisting with it, the fact that in his situation you wouldn't have the same problem is not really relevant.

smacl · 15-06-2018 7:29am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Women should be able to find a GP practice or other facility that is abortion-friendly, so to speak. They shouldn’t have to negotiate their way there via their own GP, if they don’t choose to. And they especially shouldn’t have to negotiate their way there via a GP who they fear is opposed to what they want to do.

I agree with this, and the bulk of the rest of your post in principle, but in practise I'm wondering how well it would work for many of those involved. To the best of my knowledge very many GPs are not taking on new medical card holding patients. To my mind a GP refusing treatment on grounds of conscientious objection is arguably reasonable but you could also argue that refusing a referral is abandoning a duty of care to their patient. Regardless of any of this, any service provided needs to timely and equally available to all. Part of what we voted for here was not to discriminate against those without sufficient means to travel abroad for abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-06-2018 7:34am

Well yes of course it is their problem we are addressing, not mine. I never suggested otherwise. But I am discussing whether we should be allowing or pandering to that at all. Should their problem be relevant? And if so when and why?

I do not think it should be about "outcomes" in many cases. I think it is about a doctor being licensed and mandated to mediate access to knowledge and drugs. And their job should be to apply that knowledge and expertise to evaluate A) the drug and

the patient in order to say A) the drug is applicable and

the drug is safe for the given patient to take.

So it is not about whether I evaluate it in terms of outcomes, but me questioning if AND why we as a society should be evaluating it in those terms.

What about creationist teachers for example. Their job is to apply the curriculum and teach it. Their conscientious objection to the material OR the outcome of students leaving school believing the facts of evolution should have nothing to do with it. Their job is to be a mediation point between the knowledge, and the target of that knowledge. Issues with the outcomes be damned.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2018 7:44am

smacl wrote: »

I agree with this, and the bulk of the rest of your post in principle, but in practise I'm wondering how well it would work for many of those involved. To the best of my knowledge very many GPs are not taking on new medical card holding patients. To my mind a GP refusing treatment on grounds of conscientious objection is arguably reasonable but you could also argue that refusing a referral is abandoning a duty of care to their patient. Regardless of any of this, any service provided needs to timely and equally available to all. Part of what we voted for here was not to discriminate against those without sufficient means to travel abroad for abortion.

Well, this comes back to a point I made earlier; most abortions are not sought for medical reasons. So, while a GP has a duty of care to a patient, does that duty extend to meeting the patient's non-medical needs?

As a society, we may decide that women should have access to abortion. But given that this is a social choice rather than a response to medical need, I don't see how we can say that is is particularly the responsibility of doctors to deliver that access, to such a degree that every doctor must have a legal obligation to do so, by either providing abortions or referring to someone who will, even in the absence of any medical indication.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-06-2018 7:47am

But it is not a non-medical need.

The patient is about to take a drug. They need the doctors expertise on what that drug is, what it does, how it works, and what conditions can it exacerbate or cause. They need the doctors expertise to evaluate their own medical state in terms of allergies, medical conditions. They need the doctors expertise on the influence this new drug can have on or with existing drugs.

The entire process is a medical need, and the doctors role to my mind should be to mediate access to drugs not on the basis of mere outcomes, but on the basis of applying their licensed expertise on evaluating the drug, the patient, and the effect of one on the other.

Peregrinus · 15-06-2018 8:13am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes of course it is their problem we are addressing, not mine. I never suggested otherwise. But I am discussing whether we should be allowing or pandering to that at all. Should their problem be relevant? And if so when and why?

I do not think it should be about "outcomes" in many cases. I think it is about a doctor being licensed and mandated to mediate access to knowledge and drugs. And their job should be to apply that knowledge and expertise to evaluate A) the drug and the patient in order to say A) the drug is applicable and the drug is safe for the given patient to take.

A doctor who prescribes does more than simply mediate access to drugs, in the sense of confirming that they are safe for the patient to take. By prescribing a drug, a doctor positively recommends the patient to take it, and furthermore does so precisely because of the outcome that taking the drug is expected to have. So, yeah, I don't think you can disconnect the prescription and the outcome; the prescription is the, um, outcome of the outcome. You can't presribe, except to acheive a particular outcome.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-06-2018 8:19am

Peregrinus wrote: »

A doctor who prescribes does more than simply mediate access to drugs, in the sense of confirming that they are safe for the patient to take.

Did I not include that explicitly in what I was writing numerous times? I only ask because the way your sentence comes across is as if you were adding something or correcting something in what I wrote.

Peregrinus wrote: »

By prescribing a drug, a doctor positively recommends the patient to take it, and furthermore does so precisely because of the outcome that taking the drug is expected to have.

And I think that narrative is your own and not a real one. I do not think it includes a recommendation to take it really, and certainly not in every case.

What I think a prescription should be seen as is solely as a doctor saying, in their professional opinion, that the drug does do what the patients requires to do or thinks that it does, and the drug is in fact safe for the patient to take.

And as such what is required of the doctor here is not to partake in anything, but solely to apply their knowledge in an evaluation. And as such moral objection is not something I have much sympathy for.

We live in a society that has decided access to a drug should only be done through a doctor. And I agree with this. But I do not think the doctors personal morality should be any more part of that than, as I said in an earlier post, a teachers moral opinion should come into teaching evolution in a science class.

But certainly describing it as "not a medical need" when the patients wants and needs a medical opinion on a drug, it's effects, and it's safety to take..... is an error on description.

robindch · 15-06-2018 9:21am

end of the road wrote: »

the no side were truthful and factual throughout the campaign.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

“We’re talking about wholesale slaughter, potentially up to the moment of birth and possibly even past it." - John Waters.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-eamon-dunphy-4018829-May2018/

Loafing Oaf · 15-06-2018 9:33am

end of the road wrote: »

oh absolutely i believe it's a possibility. i would never rule out such happening.

But when have pro-choice people ever engaged in such activities? By contrast you have ICBR already protesting outside maternity hospitals (admittedly not actually harassing anyone as far as we know), presumably in anticipation that abortions under the new regime will be carried out at such venues. Obviously no-one can predict the future with certainty but saying "it's doctors who don't provide the service who would be more likely to receive protests designed to intimidate and harass" seems to completely defy common sense.

Oh btw hats off to Peregrinus and Nozz, up with the lark debating this arcane subject at great length. It takes me at least half an hour to compose any post longer than a paragraph so I'm always amazed at people who can reel off this kind of stuff...:)

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-06-2018 9:37am

Yea the lies on a group and individual level were hard to swallow sometimes when they got seriously egregious and blatant. But of course it is easier for people to distance themselves from the individuals.

Claiming not to have used the term "murder" on a forum where people have multiple times quoted multi posts of them having used the term "Murder" crosses a line in lying for me though. Lying when people might buy the lie is one thing. Lying while metaphorically standing beside the truth in black and white clearly readable text though? Thats just treating the audience like the gullible non thinking idiots one apparently thinks they are.

For me the worst individual lie I experienced through the entire campaign though, which crossed the line from mere lying to pathological and outright evil...... was the user of another forum who took the pictures of a still born fetus..... that the suffering and grieving parents had offered the news paper in good faith to help raise awareness about still birth........ and openly claimed that the photos were of the result of an abortion.

Some people are liars. Others are just actually evil. And it takes a special kind of person to abuse and misuse photos like that for their own agenda.

smacl · 15-06-2018 1:19pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, this comes back to a point I made earlier; most abortions are not sought for medical reasons. So, while a GP has a duty of care to a patient, does that duty extend to meeting the patient's non-medical needs?

Whether or not to have an abortion is clearly the decision of the pregnant woman in these cases, not the GP. Once that decision has been made the need to implement it is medical. So yes, she clearly does have a medical need.

end of the road · 15-06-2018 1:20pm

robindch wrote: »

The evidence suggests otherwise.

“We’re talking about wholesale slaughter, potentially up to the moment of birth and possibly even past it." - John Waters.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-eamon-dunphy-4018829-May2018/

in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine. they aren't possibilities that i see happening myself, but i can see why he would bring them into the discussion, to remind people that once we open the door to abortion on demand, it may likely lead to further campaigns for more liberal laws in relation to the taking of life in certain circumstances, circumstances where the individual who's life is being taken may not have a choice in the matter.

Zubeneschamali · 15-06-2018 1:46pm

end of the road wrote: »

in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine.

Lying his head off, in other words, when speaking about the 8th amendment which had exactly nothing to do with euthanasia.

King Mob · 15-06-2018 1:57pm

end of the road wrote: »

in relation to the up to birth and past it comment, he's talking about long term possibilities, including child euthanasia i'd imagine. they aren't possibilities that i see happening myself, but i can see why he would bring them into the discussion, to remind people that once we open the door to abortion on demand, it may likely lead to further campaigns for more liberal laws in relation to the taking of life in certain circumstances, circumstances where the individual who's life is being taken may not have a choice in the matter.

So lets say that a member of the Yes side was arguing that retaining the 8th was the first step in creating a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders...
Would this be a reasonable position also? Or would you call that a lie?

What about the lie you most recently told where you denied that you referred to abortion is murder?
Do you stand by that denial? Do you stand by the assertion that abortion is murder.
Which was the lie here?

end of the road · 15-06-2018 2:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

So lets say that a member of the Yes side was arguing that retaining the 8th was the first step in creating a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders...
Would this be a reasonable position also? Or would you call that a lie?

it's a ridiculous comparison as if there was any plan to create a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders., there would be large scale evidence of it before the 8th would be introduced. even then the 8th couldn't be a step in that process as it was impossible for it to enforce women becoming breeders.

King Mob · 15-06-2018 2:13pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's a ridiculous comparison as if there was any plan to create a misogynist dictatorship where women are forced to be breeders., there would be large scale evidence of it before the 8th would be introduced. even then the 8th couldn't be a step in that process as it was impossible for it to enforce women becoming breeders.

Yea, I know. The other scenario, the one you provided was just as silly.
If someone on the proposed this on the repeal side, you'd be calling it a lie.
But because it's on your side, it's a perfectly reasonable scenario.

You have also dodged the question I asked:
What about the lie you most recently told where you denied that you referred to abortion is murder?
Do you stand by that denial? Do you stand by the assertion that abortion is murder.
Which was the lie here?

You may continue dodging it, but that would just be proving how dishonest you are.

end of the road · 15-06-2018 2:13pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lying his head off, in other words, when speaking about the 8th amendment which had exactly nothing to do with euthanasia.

no, he wasn't lying, as he didn't state these possibilities would come to fruition, rather that they were more possible to happen once people open the door to allowing the ending of life for any reason.

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Comments