Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Overheal · 11-06-2018 10:11pm

RobertKK wrote: »

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

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

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

Overheal · 11-06-2018 10:31pm

RobertKK wrote: »

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

No, love. That isn’t what he said.

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

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

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

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

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

Else how far would this ‘conscientious objection’ Extend?

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

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

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

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

Annabella1 · 11-06-2018 10:32pm

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

Fighting Tao · 11-06-2018 11:47pm

Annabella1 wrote: »

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

Why not list the anti-choice doctors instead?

end of the road · 11-06-2018 11:56pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Why not list the anti-choice doctors instead?

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

Fighting Tao · 12-06-2018 12:14am

end of the road wrote: »

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

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

ELM327 · 12-06-2018 7:41am

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not even arguing about the abortions themselves.

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

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

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

ELM327 · 12-06-2018 7:42am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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

Offer it or lose the practice imo

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

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

Igotadose · 12-06-2018 8:11am

ELM327 wrote: »

Offer it or lose the practice imo

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

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

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

gctest50 · 12-06-2018 8:23am

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 · 12-06-2018 8:33am

needs someone who can actually use photoshop :

RobertKK · 12-06-2018 12:12pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:15pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:18pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:21pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:22pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:26pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:28pm

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 · 12-06-2018 12:28pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:00pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:02pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:09pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:14pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:14pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:39pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:46pm

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 · 12-06-2018 1:52pm

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 · 12-06-2018 2:10pm

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 · 12-06-2018 2:54pm

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 · 12-06-2018 3:00pm

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.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments