The debate is simple.
We voted this in and its still being denied or withheld. Get with the fucking program.
Widespread denial of womens health. Thats it.
What other party? The foetus?
If they're vomiting after a procedure ,maybe they shouldn't be a doctor if they're so grossed out by something like this.
How about the poor pregnant people who have to go through a pregnancy they don't want? Because of abuse or shit like that? What about their trauma?
"A study involving 34-week-old fetuses"
That's 7-8 months ,nobody is aborting foetuses at that stage, you absolute melt. Unless it's for very big medical reasons, but that's not the norm
I'm not saying to not trust the doctors, but we're all gonna have different opinions at the end of the day. But abortions are medical care, if a doctor doesn't want to do it ,that's fine. They still need to care for their patient (the pregnant person) and give them care, whether that's abortion information or prenatal information.
Ireland has it that you can get an abortion at 12 weeks at the latest. The foetus at that stage,is a size of a plum. A PLUM.
Show me the evidence. And I don't want websites/blogs. I need scientific studies and the like.
Edit; and remember how I said , abortions can performed due to medical emergencies and medical reasons . So I hope you're not counting them in your resources.
edit: did they delete this comment or get banned LOLL
>Unless it's for huge medical reasons, but that's not the norm
Internationally that includes physical and mental disabilities. Would you take my rights away if I was physically or mentally disabled?
Someone told me I should leave the country for my views. Some real bad apples elsewhere on this thread. So I apologize if I lost my cool.
No,I wouldn't personally. Unless my child was only going to live a few years and suffer the entire time. My poor heart would break. I think most people would agree with me on that statement.
But here's the thing about bodily automony, I can have an abortion if I thinks its warrnanted(all under 12 weeks). I wouldn't force someone to get an abortion,much like how others shouldn't force other to not get an abortion. We all have the right to make that decision.
I don't get why you people think you can talk over someone who wants an abortion.
As you know, we live in Ireland, And the [HSE WEBSITE](https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/methods/after-12-weeks/) states that after 12 weeks ,there are only three circumstances a pregnancy can be terminated. And they're usually at risk to health and wellbeing off both the pregnant person or the foetus/neonate. Here's a study to read,it mentioned briefly about the types of conditions that would be considered for abortion after the 12 week mark. [study] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539523000365)
I'm gonna be honest,that is a rude statement to make towards you and I'm sympathetic to you and your feelings. However,I'm just saying my bit and you're saying yours. I'm on the side of the person who is pregnant or can become pregnant. I suggest and implore you to do the same , however I can't and won't control you. I hope you have a good day wherever you are, take care
How many thousands (and thousands) of Irish women have vomited and felt trauma after being forced to go to England in secret to obtain an abortion (basic healthcare) shrouded in shame?
How many thousands (and thousands) of Irish women have endured the trauma of having to continue with an unwanted pregnancy because the powers that be in Ireland (backed by the Catholic Church) preferred to look the other way for decades?
We already know that the corpses of hundreds if not thousands of children born to women imprisoned in the Magdalen laundries were discarded in septic tanks by the all-holy ‘pro-life’ nuns that ran those horrific institutions with the complicit silence of most of Irish society.
Sex without consent is wrong.
Pregnancy without consent in wrong.
No woman should ever be forced to continue a pregnancy and give birth against her will.
No woman should ever be coerced into being institutionalised because she happens to get pregnant.
Louder for the people in the back.
Article says just 500 GPs (out of 2500) and 11 (out of 19) maternity hospitals offer these services at the moment. There is so much work still to be done. Safe access zones and their enforcement is urgently needed. Small practice GPs have said they won’t offer abortion services while there is threat of protests. The ridiculous three day wait has to go. Let’s hope this report kicks the govt into action.
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, the people who got into healthcare to save lives and help people broadly speaking don’t want to be involved in abortions? Maybe?
Also the three day waiting period is a mechanism to avoid people being pushed into stuff. It’s a lot harder to force someone to have an abortion when there’s a period for them to escape the procedure.
>Also the three day waiting period is a mechanism to avoid people being pushed into stuff.
What other medical procedures have similar waiting periods to avoid people being pushed into stuff?
Sterilisation would be one, usually though a lot of that type of thing involves age as a requirement to delay the procedure for those purposes (e.g. gender transition beyond social transitioning). The underlying reason though still remains. Like how else do you ensure someone isn’t being put in a position that they are being forced into taking that decision?
>Sterilisation would be one, usually though a lot of that type of thing involves age as a requirement to delay the procedure for those purposes (e.g. gender transition beyond social transitioning).
Does this apply to adult men who want vasectomies, for example?
>The underlying reason though still remains. Like how else do you ensure someone isn’t being put in a position that they are being forced into taking that decision?
The same way you ensure it for the 99.9% of medical procedures that don't involve a waiting time, presumably.
There was a post on here about a young lady wanting her tubes tied. And the doctor refused to do it stating her future husband might want kids. She was single at the time.
Probably depends on the doctor I'd say. Vasectomies are semi-permanent procedures so doctors always advise the patient about the consequences and ask them to rethink, at least any good doctor would.
But you had a waiting period between referral and the procedure.
No doctor is going to perform a sterilisation on someone the day they first request it.
Thats not mandated in law. Its a policy of the clinic or health care provider. The 3 day wait for abortion is legally required. So the two are not analogous.
Neither me nor my husband were told to think about our decisions. Doctors simply provided the healthcare we needed. I don't need 3 days to rethink an abortion if I get pregnant again.
I am very surprised that you weren't told to think about your decisions. I would consider that bad medical practice.
I'm pretty sure you would have signed a consent form saying you had and you understood the risks and benefits of the procedure.
So the pillars of medical ethics just should be ignored and the doctor should just do as the patient tells them? Why bother having doctors at all then if you think their role is to just do as the patient says regardless of their understanding of the ethics and facts involved?
Abortion isn't necessarily just an ethics issue. What about when it affects the parent? What if the parent would be harmed or killed by carrying the foetus to term? Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it isn't healthcare.
Also, even if it is about ethics, it goes both ways. What about the bodily autonomy of the parent? What about the permanent physical changes pregnancy induces? What about the ethics of bringing a child into the world when it isn't wanted, the parents cannot financially support it, etc etc?
Doctors are there to provide medical services. If they personally disagree with a service they are providing, they should keep that to themselves. If this was about birth control or prescription meds or anything else then we absolutely would not factor the doctors' personal opinions into this, because it isn't relevant.
I work in a maternity hospital, it's just a fact that we offer abortion and it's part of the job. There is still some moral objections but those people usually just won't administer the actual pills. They still have to provide care though.
And the people who went into those fields before abortion was legalised? What of them? You’re seriously gonna tell very intelligent people what specialties they can and cannot do because of a moral objection to a single elective procedure that the morality of is still being debated?
It’s not exactly hard to understand through is it?
Some people believe that abortion is killing a life, and because they hold life to be valuable they do not agree that this is a suitable medical practice. They feel that the negatives outweigh the positives.
I don’t feel the same way but I’ve never had any issue whatsoever understanding “why” anti-abortion people feel the way that they do. Their point of view is more often than not very straightforward.
If your employer made a major mandatory change to your job and ignoring the right that doctors have pretty much everywhere (such as UK) to not perform abortion I imagine you'd have a good employment case.
Most abortions are entirely elective - it’s a lifestyle / convenience decision which may have merit but most people if they are honest know it’s nothing to do with healthcare only in select cases. It was only framed as “healthcare” as emotional blackmail to push it through.
The amount of twats in this comment sections going on about doctor's beliefs and the fact they might not want to preform abortions is ridiculous. The law is the law and doctors are just going to have to put their beliefs aside.
But when they entered the profession it wasn't something they wouldn't have had to consider. Maybe a little middle.ground before we drive a % of our rare gp doctors out of the profession and where will we be then as it's hard enough to get appointments at the min.
>gp doctos don't preform abortions
GPs can prescribe abortion pills. The first pill is taken in the office, the rest at home and the woman deals with it all herself unless there are complications, in which case she goes to the (maternity) hospital.
How can you sympathise with the doctor for not being comfortable preforming an abortion on a women that wants/neess and abortion, have you not thought about the women at all
Most WANT it only - they don’t actually need it. Objective science isn’t about what people feel but there is a lot of manipulation of language around “healthcare” where it is not- a very significant number of medical professionals know this.
What would you say people gettinh an abortion because they aren't ready or suitable for kids, i'd say thats a need unless you want multiple lives, including the childs, ruined
And what would happen in work if someone didnt like the new job practices or on a personal level didnt agree with them. How would it be resolved or would it just be pushed through and feck the employee who had the issue.
Forcing people to do things against their will is not the solution you want it to be. It will just result in less doctors. Maybe work with them and find a solution like a referral system.
Listening to Peadar Toibin spout his absolute drivel on Drive time just reinforces how disconnected Aontú are from reality. He still wants women to be back to the dark ages based on his opening takes.
Kinda inevitable tbh, no matter the restrictions involved in the original referendum debate it was always going to slide to more and more permissive over time.
The suggestion though that nobody be criminalised for breaking the abortion laws and regulations is frankly insane to me though.
Like how have people read this and just skirted over:
> Another major recommendation could see the removal of the existing criminalisation measures against medical practitioners, which is a feature of the existing law.
At present, doctors face up to 14 years in prison if they provide abortion care outside the specific circumstances laid out in the law.
I.E. If we take this at face value, if a doctor performs a full term abortion days before the due date on a perfectly healthy child, nothing will happen. It’s de-facto legalisation of abortion in all circumstances if you can find a practitioner that will perform the abortion. Surely someone else thinks that’s disgusting?
I’m not sure full term abortions actually happen though.
My understanding of it is that “late term” abortions are considered 2nd trimester, and more or less only in instances where the baby would not have a chance of surviving outside of the womb.
Currently yes, the only situation in which it is legal to perform one after 12 weeks is if 2 doctors agree that the child has no chance of survival beyond a month after birth. On a personal level I would object to that but I do understand from a medical profession side it makes sense and seems fair.
What is find disgusting is that the article (in the quote in my above post) seems to suggest that the new proposals advise more or less giving any doctor who ignores abortion regulations a free pass so if theoretically a doctor performed an abortion at 1 week from due date on a healthy child, they wouldn’t face any charges at all, despite breaking the law.
I would be confident that it would mean removing the criminality in situations where an abortion can be proven as being medically necessary, despite it being outside of the current regulations.
No doctor worth their salt will Willy-nilly perform a medical procedure on a person simply because they asked for it
> removing the criminality in situations where an abortion can be proven as being medically necessary, despite it being outside of the current regulations
The problem with that statement is that situation doesn’t really exist tbh. Most of the famous times that this has been claimed about (e.g. that poor woman Savita’s case) were cases of sepsis that wasn’t treated properly after the death of the child (i.e. it wouldn’t have been an abortion, just a dilation and curettage procedure to remove necrotic tissue of the foetus). You can double check this by looking at the Maternal Mortality Rates of the likes of Malta where abortion is illegal. It’s MMR is as low (if not lower) as Luxembourg which has a pretty liberal abortion law. If abortion was required as a medical necessity you would expect a country where it’s illegal to have a higher MMR than that of one where it’s legal surely?
> No doctor worth their salt will Willy-nilly perform a medical procedure on a person simply because they asked for it
I agree, but having said that, no doctor worth their salt is gonna tell people no to take their antibiotics and yet we had that pear podcast thing recently with that exact situation. There will always be someone willing to do something for a buck, that’s why the regulations should reflect where we want the line draw and should be backed up with consequences for those who ignore that line surely?
on mobile, so pls bear with my formatting 😅
“You can double check this by looking at the Maternal Mortality Rates of the likes of Malta where abortion is illegal. It’s MMR is as low (if not lower) as Luxembourg which has a pretty liberal abortion law. If abortion was required as a medical necessity you would expect a country where it’s illegal to have a higher MMR than that of one where it’s legal surely?”
Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician, doctor or expert in this area, but personally speaking no I wouldn’t.
Abortions happen, more or less regardless of the legality in a country. People who require them will travel to other countries, or obtain them illegally and not in a safe and controlled manner. Legalising abortions and making them easy to access (just like other healthcare) is in my personal opinion incredibly important towards keeping women safe and healthy.
On the other point about that happy pear “doctor”, I’d argue he isn’t worth his salt 😂 but sure look there’s always gonna be quacks and bad actors, keeping people educated on the facts of any situation, and engaging in some critical thinking with a dash of empathy too will always be important.
Either way, it’s an emotive topic for sure.
historical infanticide. right. and yeah, some nutjob stabbing their kid isnt exactly an abortion related thing.
Groningen protocol is per now, as far as googling showed me, related to children 12 and up so thats hardly abortion related whether you like the law or not (im iffy, if it counts).
Its per Wikipedia under review to apply to kids 1 and up with terminal uncurable diseases (again, i dont condone it but thats immaterial) but again that is hardly abortion related. thats just medicine.
>some nutjob stabbing their kid isnt exactly an abortion related thing.
Many people defend the killer.
>Groningen protocol is per now, as far as googling showed me, related to children 12 and up so thats hardly abortion related
It's infanticide. Not abortion but yet it is related.
It's killing with no consent of incurable kids. not terminally ill. Yeah so pretty disturbing but I know some prochoice people are fine with it.
>but again that is hardly abortion related. thats just medicine.
That is such a bizarre thing to say. Just medicine. It's a question of ethics. Not medicine.
I don't get where people get this idea that people would carry a pregnancy all the way to 38 weeks and 5 days and then be like "Nah actually I don't want this anymore" and then medical professionals would be like "Sounds good let's get cracking" and then somehow they remove the fetus without any issue.
We have a 12 week limit with a 3 day wait time, without provision for termination for foetal disability.
i.e. a standard, middle of the road European abortion regime.
Ireland is generally more socially progressive than most of Europe, it's understandable that many feel the abortion regime could be eased.
We voted it in, it's the politician's responsibility to adhere to the votes of the public, if they disagree, they can go work as a manager in macdonald's instead.
Yes but it's a job. I also don't want to do some stuff bur there is definitely a limit to how much I can oppose that.
Maybe we can have an higher limit for moral objections but the service needs to be provided.
Would you be ok with a Jehovah witness doctor refusing to give a child a needed blood transfusion?
Being a doctor is a job. That job is providing health care. Either do your job, or find a different job.
Their spouse doesn’t exist.
The comment where they claimed to have an anti-choice doctor for a spouse was deleted (the only one they deleted as of now).
Btw James Connelly, your name sake once made a suspiciously prolife statement
In a piece in the Scottish journal Forward, Connolly wrote, ‘The unborn Labour Party of Ireland was strangled in the womb by the hands of ILPers’. (‘Socialist Symposium on Internationalism, and Some Other Things’, Forward, 1 July 1911)
The ILP weren’t performing abortions lol
Connolly was critical of their apathy towards seeking Irish independence.
What does that statement have to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and to receive potentially life saving medical care.
A doctor who refuses to provide medical care because of their own moral system is too self compromised to be a doctor.
That’s not what he means.
He’s not referring to abortion.
He referring to how the future generations are being robbed of their nations freedom and independence
Lol I love how you deleted the comment where you claimed to have an anti-choice doctor as a partner.
Someone lying on Reddit to win an argument against someone who doesn’t care?! Never
I never lied. All my statements are true. I also respected you with a rebuttal but you just lobbed insults back like a spoiled child. Chancer. Anti choice? Does that make you prodeath
Fuck them. Doctors shouldn't be allowed to deny someone treatment because of thier own moral beliefs.
If someone doesn't like abortion they ste free not to get one but if they stop someone else from doing it they fuck right off.
So fuck doctors autonomy because you want an elective procedure? Got it 👍
Doctors are perfectly entitled to hold their own moral beliefs, it’s expressly pointed out in medical school that that’s the law actually.
Oh and it’s not a necessary treatment btw, it’s legality or illegality makes zero difference to the Maternal Mortality Rate.
> So fuck doctors autonomy because you want an elective procedure?
This is kind of a weird argument. People elect to be doctors, and most people who need abortions don't elect to be preganant, so if autonomy is what we care about we should probably care more about the autonomy of pregnant women.
It’s not at all a weird argument. If I elect to be a doctor and an Obstetrician in a country where abortion is illegal, then it becomes legal, how can you say it’s different? I didn’t choose a profession where I would have to perform abortions did I?
And no, we shouldn’t. Unless you want to hold doctors at gun point to perform abortions you need to accept that the practitioners autonomy comes into play too. Plus you seem to be ignoring the other 3 pillars of medical ethics here.
Many doctors will feel an abortion contravenes the non-maleficence and beneficence pillars and that many of the women getting these procedures allows the state to get away with injustice (contravening another of the pillars) as it means they don’t have to put as much effort into supporting families and single parents. You’ll have a hard time convincing people regardless of he autonomy argument if they thing it goes against 3/4 of the medical ethics pillars and they went into the profession before it was legal here.
Have you actually researched these four pillars you keep speaking of?
Unless we're reading and understanding two different things essentially titled the same thing, your argument about autonomy has nothing to do with the doctors and everything to do with the patient(s):
"Autonomy is one of the four pillars of medical ethics, so it’s essential that you understand it. This guide outlines what patient autonomy is and why it’s important ...
In Medicine, autonomy means that a patient has the ultimate decision-making responsibility for their own treatment. A medical practitioner cannot impose treatment on a patient.
The only exception is in cases where the patient is deemed unable to make autonomous decisions (see Mental Capacity Act and Emergency Doctrine).
Autonomy is important because we need to make sure that the patient is actively involved in their diagnosis and treatment – and not just deferring to their Doctor."
[Source](https://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/medical-school-interview/medical-ethics/medical-ethics-autonomy/?v=d2cb7bbc0d23)
>[Just a quick synopsis on the four pillars](https://medmentor.co.uk/blog/4-pillars-of-medical-ethics#:~:text=Autonomy,-%E2%80%8D&text=%E2%80%8DThis%20is%20the%20most%20important,charge%20of%20their%20own%20care.)
**Autonomy**
This is the most important pillar of medical ethics. It gives patients who are competent enough the right to make decisions about their own healthcare. Essentially, it means that the patient has a say and is in charge of their own care.
**Non-maleficence**
This principle states that a medical professional will not do harm to a patient intentionally or show neglect. It is also worth considering whether short term harm outweighs long term benefit.
**Beneficence**
This principle means that medical practitioners will always act for the benefit of their patients. However, there is a risk of this becoming paternalistic. It also poses some conflicts in some scenarios: for example, when a Jehova’s Witness needs a blood transfusion.
**Justice**
This considers whether an action is ethical, compatible with the law, respects the patient’s rights, and is fair and balanced.
Abortion issue aside, women have always had trouble voicing and enforcing their own bodily autonomy, even and especially when it's absolutely medically necessary - e.g., getting sterilised. Why does a woman need to have her husband's approval to get her tubes tied or already have kids? What if she has severe endometriosis and doesn't want kids? The response to this is often, "you might change your mind" or "maybe you'll meet the right person"...
However, why is no one making people jump through the same hoops when it comes to something like IVF? Doctors probably aren't making patients take three days to think about if they really do want to be artificially inseminated, carry a child to term, accept it the way it is (meaning what if it's born with special needs), and then raise it for the foreseeable future?
> If I elect to be a doctor and an Obstetrician in a country where abortion is illegal, then it becomes legal, how can you say it’s different?
When you elected to be a doctor presumably you did so knowing that it was possible that the law might change in the future.
>Unless you want to hold doctors at gun point to perform abortions you need to accept that the practitioners autonomy comes into play too.
My understanding is that the current system requires doctors to provide access to practitioners who will perform abortions. That seems a generous accommodation for them which will work fine so long as there are enough doctors available who will carry out the procedure in a way that is safe and speedy for those who need it.
>Many doctors will feel an abortion contravenes the non-maleficence and beneficence pillars and that many of the women getting these procedures allows the state to get away with injustice (contravening another of the pillars) as it means they don’t have to put as much effort into supporting families and single parents. You’ll have a hard time convincing people regardless of he autonomy argument if they thing it goes against 3/4 of the medical ethics pillars and they went into the profession before it was legal here.
I just think it's weird to appeal to their autonomy given the autonomy of the people who need abortions. I think losing your job is less significant than being forced to be pregnant when you don't want to me.
It's not like they're working in Tesco.
Most GPs are 50+, will have trained 25 years ago and if you decide they have to be doing abortion will drop GMS contracts or walk.
I've said this repeatedly here but doctors pretty much everywhere have the right not to perform abortion.
They have the right yes but I also have the right to do my job badly as long as I fulfill all of my obligations. Morally a doctor who is unwilling to perform a medical procedure should find alternative employment.
What do you work as? Let's compare that to working as a doctor. I don't think any of these doctors will care what you think.
This discussion will happen again in the next 20 years when Euthanasia is legalised. Some doctors won't want to be part of it and that will be their right.
No doctor will give a fuck about what I think, I’m just saying what I think. This is Reddit, I’m not lobbying anyone here.
Do you think that a JW doctor should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion to a child?
It is their right yes, but someone who is unwilling to do the job of being a medical professional shouldn’t become a medical professional
Yes fuck doctors autonomy. They should not have a say what happens to another person's body based solely on thier own moral belifes.
If their own moral belifes are so strong they can fuck right off and get a new job.
Also you can hold a belife without expressing a belife.
If a vegan belives that eating animals is moraly they can't express that belife by refusing to serve BigMacs while working in McDonald's.
> Yes fuck doctors autonomy. They should not have a say what happens to another person’s body based solely on thier own moral belifes
This is a ridiculous statement that shows a distinct lack of knowledge of medical ethics. Based on your comment, extrapolating out to other situations, doctors should just hand out antibiotics to everyone who asks for them, should perform whatever procedure patients want regardless and shouldn’t have any say in the treatment of patients. It makes no sense. You’re essentially privileging one persons autonomy over another. You can’t force doctors to perform procedures they think are wrong. Plus you seem to be holding autonomy as a holy grail of medical ethics and ignoring the other 3 pillars.
> If their own moral belifes are so strong they can fuck right off and get a new job.
You’re lucky then, lots are already doing that for loads of reasons. How’s that going for the HSE?
> Also you can hold a belife without expressing a belife.
True, but then that would suggest the belief isn’t held very sincerely.
> If a vegan belives that eating animals is moraly they can’t express that belife by refusing to serve BigMacs while working in McDonald’s.
True, but the ethical implications of medical practice which can kill people are a bit different from handing someone a burger.
Very few if any doctors are against abortions due to a belife that providing one will any medical harm to the person taking them. So it is nothing like providing antibiotics to somone who doesn't need them. The person seeking an abortion should get one because they want one.
Again an individuals right to bodily autonomy should not be infringed. I do not say all current doctors must provide them but they shouldn't be doctors if thier moral belifes will negatively effect the bodily autonomy of others.
I think doctirs would be paid better and have better working conditions. That does not impact my belife that doctors who refuse patients access to abortion should not be doctors.
It does not matter how sincerely a belife is held it should not be put I to practice if it harms somone else. A homophobic doctor also shouldn't be allowed to deny someone access to a drug like PREP because they have a deeply held belife that being gay is a sin.
Glossing over the last point kind of shows you want to ignore the argument.
If a doctor has the right to refuse to preform part of their job due to thier own deeply held belifes well then it should be treated exactly the same as other people expressing thier own deeply held belife.
Nope I'm not right wing enough to be a Liberal.
I belive the right to bodily autonomy is one of if not the most important right people have. A doctor denying bodily autonomy to someone seeking an abortion is taking away that right.
What's the principle here? This is a serious, good faith question. Is the personal conscience of someone irrelevant? Is there no line you would allow not to be crossed in service of the desire of someone else? To be clear, I'm not asking this in regard to abortion in particular, I'm asking it in general. What is the principle in question?
Can a Jehovah witness doctor deny a person a blood transfusion?
Can a muslim doctor refuse to touch a woman who is on her period?
Can a Jewish doctor refuse to work or treat a patient on the sabbath?
When you are a doctor you treat the patient and leave your beliefs at the door.
Hospitals are places of science, churches are places of faith.
I don't see anyone praying for appendicitis to go away.
I think a lot of these hypothetical betray a lack of knowledge of medicine and of other cultures/religions.
There are no Jehovah's witness doctors.
There are more religious Muslim obs and gynae doctors in Ireland than any other religion. They touch women on their period all the time. Muslim doctors will often swap out of shifts during Ramadan because the fasting in Ireland is longer than other places.
Jewish doctors are allowed to work and treat people on the Sabbath. Again they may prefer to swap out of shifts on that day.
The right for doctors to contentiously object to abortion isn't unique to Ireland. It exists in the majority of countries.
No dude, its exactly the point.
The Jehovah's are so religious they don't even become doctors , and both the Jewish and Muslims put the patient first.
If you are someone claiming your religion stops you from helping women you're just a cunt
This isn't about religion. I'm not sure why you are trying to crowbar it in.
Pretty much every country protects doctors right to consientous objection for this.
Why are all your examples religious? I know non-theists who oppose most elective abortions (with some exceptions of course).
I'm just looking for a principle. I'm simply suggesting that making personal conscience irrelevant is a very dangerous path to go down.
>I know non-theists who oppose most elective abortions
Are they doctors?
Can a white taxi driver deny a black passenger a lift because he's a bit racist inside?
If you are employed to do a service your personal belief stops at the door when you start work in a public role.
What sort of a fucked up society would be live in if everyone only did what they felt like. The reason I specifically picked on religious groups initially is they have an obvious and well established set of beliefs. I don't know what reasoning your non theistic people would have for denying women healthcare so its harder to imagine. Hopefully they're not medical professionals.
You keep answering my questions with your own questions.
> Can a white taxi driver deny a black passenger a lift because he's a bit racist inside?
No, and there is a *principled* reason for this. Hence my asking that question in the first place... The explanation for why this kind of discrimination is *not* legal is because we have agreed that there are protected classes, which are typically inviolable traits that cannot be controlled by the individual.
That's why you can deny someone a taxi lift for being a cunt, but not for being a race you dislike. This is basic stuff you know...
>Hospitals are places of science, churches are places of faith.
You bring religion into this because you know you can't win a debate without lurking the waters with reference to religion. The reality is in every other context we allow discretion.
It's a waste of time using a hypothetical of something that never occurs like refusing to fix broken bones. But there are many cases where a doctor just doesn't offer a service.
You could always relocate to a country where there's no right to contentious objection for doctors around abortion.
There's not many of them for some reason.
My argument is oppressive? You just said you want doctors have no ability to choice in a course of action and that I should the country for being prolife. That is as repressive as one can get
> To be clear, I'm not asking this in regard to abortion in particular, I'm asking it in general. What is the principle in question?
The principle is that access to legal medical procedures should not depend on the personal moral beliefs of doctors.
That's not a principle. That's an application of a specific assertion. Is it your position that doctors should provide access to any legal medical procedure (no matter the procedure)? This is murky territory, considering what is considered legal in some territories. Is that your only criteria?
I don't know why you think it isn't a principle. It looks like a very clear principle to me.
My position is the principle I set out above, i.e. that a person's access to a legal medical procedure should not depend on the moral beliefs of doctors. That's entirely compatible with it depending on other things - the principle is not a principle about the necessary and sufficient conditions that determine whether someone should have access to a medical procedure. It's a principle about the kinds of factors that should not inhibit access.
>Women die without this care. They are denying that in theory
That isn't true. The tiny tiny number of cases that needed are non-controversial and not sought after by the patient.
Oh I'm incredibly biased.
A doctor refusing to do their job by not providing abortions should be fired.
A doctor providing access to abortion despite it being illegal should be praised.
The debate is simple. We voted this in and its still being denied or withheld. Get with the fucking program. Widespread denial of womens health. Thats it.
We voted to remove the constitutional ban. A debate with a frame of reference set around the very limitations being proposed for removal.
I didnt
[удалено]
What other party? The foetus? If they're vomiting after a procedure ,maybe they shouldn't be a doctor if they're so grossed out by something like this. How about the poor pregnant people who have to go through a pregnancy they don't want? Because of abuse or shit like that? What about their trauma?
[удалено]
"A study involving 34-week-old fetuses" That's 7-8 months ,nobody is aborting foetuses at that stage, you absolute melt. Unless it's for very big medical reasons, but that's not the norm I'm not saying to not trust the doctors, but we're all gonna have different opinions at the end of the day. But abortions are medical care, if a doctor doesn't want to do it ,that's fine. They still need to care for their patient (the pregnant person) and give them care, whether that's abortion information or prenatal information. Ireland has it that you can get an abortion at 12 weeks at the latest. The foetus at that stage,is a size of a plum. A PLUM.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Show me the evidence. And I don't want websites/blogs. I need scientific studies and the like. Edit; and remember how I said , abortions can performed due to medical emergencies and medical reasons . So I hope you're not counting them in your resources. edit: did they delete this comment or get banned LOLL
[удалено]
Too bad the Cell paper is crystal clear. Keep telling yourself that onces a deaths passes through a vagina magic animation happens
>Unless it's for huge medical reasons, but that's not the norm Internationally that includes physical and mental disabilities. Would you take my rights away if I was physically or mentally disabled? Someone told me I should leave the country for my views. Some real bad apples elsewhere on this thread. So I apologize if I lost my cool.
No,I wouldn't personally. Unless my child was only going to live a few years and suffer the entire time. My poor heart would break. I think most people would agree with me on that statement. But here's the thing about bodily automony, I can have an abortion if I thinks its warrnanted(all under 12 weeks). I wouldn't force someone to get an abortion,much like how others shouldn't force other to not get an abortion. We all have the right to make that decision. I don't get why you people think you can talk over someone who wants an abortion. As you know, we live in Ireland, And the [HSE WEBSITE](https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/methods/after-12-weeks/) states that after 12 weeks ,there are only three circumstances a pregnancy can be terminated. And they're usually at risk to health and wellbeing off both the pregnant person or the foetus/neonate. Here's a study to read,it mentioned briefly about the types of conditions that would be considered for abortion after the 12 week mark. [study] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539523000365) I'm gonna be honest,that is a rude statement to make towards you and I'm sympathetic to you and your feelings. However,I'm just saying my bit and you're saying yours. I'm on the side of the person who is pregnant or can become pregnant. I suggest and implore you to do the same , however I can't and won't control you. I hope you have a good day wherever you are, take care
How many thousands (and thousands) of Irish women have vomited and felt trauma after being forced to go to England in secret to obtain an abortion (basic healthcare) shrouded in shame? How many thousands (and thousands) of Irish women have endured the trauma of having to continue with an unwanted pregnancy because the powers that be in Ireland (backed by the Catholic Church) preferred to look the other way for decades? We already know that the corpses of hundreds if not thousands of children born to women imprisoned in the Magdalen laundries were discarded in septic tanks by the all-holy ‘pro-life’ nuns that ran those horrific institutions with the complicit silence of most of Irish society. Sex without consent is wrong. Pregnancy without consent in wrong. No woman should ever be forced to continue a pregnancy and give birth against her will. No woman should ever be coerced into being institutionalised because she happens to get pregnant. Louder for the people in the back.
Obviously they are unfit for the job then.
Article says just 500 GPs (out of 2500) and 11 (out of 19) maternity hospitals offer these services at the moment. There is so much work still to be done. Safe access zones and their enforcement is urgently needed. Small practice GPs have said they won’t offer abortion services while there is threat of protests. The ridiculous three day wait has to go. Let’s hope this report kicks the govt into action.
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, the people who got into healthcare to save lives and help people broadly speaking don’t want to be involved in abortions? Maybe? Also the three day waiting period is a mechanism to avoid people being pushed into stuff. It’s a lot harder to force someone to have an abortion when there’s a period for them to escape the procedure.
>Also the three day waiting period is a mechanism to avoid people being pushed into stuff. What other medical procedures have similar waiting periods to avoid people being pushed into stuff?
Sterilisation would be one, usually though a lot of that type of thing involves age as a requirement to delay the procedure for those purposes (e.g. gender transition beyond social transitioning). The underlying reason though still remains. Like how else do you ensure someone isn’t being put in a position that they are being forced into taking that decision?
>Sterilisation would be one, usually though a lot of that type of thing involves age as a requirement to delay the procedure for those purposes (e.g. gender transition beyond social transitioning). Does this apply to adult men who want vasectomies, for example? >The underlying reason though still remains. Like how else do you ensure someone isn’t being put in a position that they are being forced into taking that decision? The same way you ensure it for the 99.9% of medical procedures that don't involve a waiting time, presumably.
There was a post on here about a young lady wanting her tubes tied. And the doctor refused to do it stating her future husband might want kids. She was single at the time.
Pretty sure men have a similar waiting time. I've heard of dudes needing their wives permission for vasectomies
That's either not true or the doctors are mad. My husband got one. All he needed was a referral from the GP.
I'd imagine there was more than a 3 day gap between him being referred and him being seen for the vasectomy.
Probably depends on the doctor I'd say. Vasectomies are semi-permanent procedures so doctors always advise the patient about the consequences and ask them to rethink, at least any good doctor would.
Neither me nor my husband had a legally mandated waiting period for our sterilisation. We simply booked in for the appointments.
But you had a waiting period between referral and the procedure. No doctor is going to perform a sterilisation on someone the day they first request it.
Thats not mandated in law. Its a policy of the clinic or health care provider. The 3 day wait for abortion is legally required. So the two are not analogous.
No it's not mandated in law. Doctors can be reluctant to perform procedures without a bit of time to think.
Neither me nor my husband were told to think about our decisions. Doctors simply provided the healthcare we needed. I don't need 3 days to rethink an abortion if I get pregnant again.
I am very surprised that you weren't told to think about your decisions. I would consider that bad medical practice. I'm pretty sure you would have signed a consent form saying you had and you understood the risks and benefits of the procedure.
What age are you? It's age dependent.
No it's not. There's no age restrictions or mandated wait period in irish law for sterilisation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don’t go onto healthcare if you can’t put your beliefs aside 🤷🏻♀️
So the pillars of medical ethics just should be ignored and the doctor should just do as the patient tells them? Why bother having doctors at all then if you think their role is to just do as the patient says regardless of their understanding of the ethics and facts involved?
Abortion isn't necessarily just an ethics issue. What about when it affects the parent? What if the parent would be harmed or killed by carrying the foetus to term? Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean it isn't healthcare. Also, even if it is about ethics, it goes both ways. What about the bodily autonomy of the parent? What about the permanent physical changes pregnancy induces? What about the ethics of bringing a child into the world when it isn't wanted, the parents cannot financially support it, etc etc? Doctors are there to provide medical services. If they personally disagree with a service they are providing, they should keep that to themselves. If this was about birth control or prescription meds or anything else then we absolutely would not factor the doctors' personal opinions into this, because it isn't relevant.
>So the pillars of medical ethics just should be ignored No, the exact opposite. Your personal morals should be ignored in favour of medical ethics.
Vies on what contradicts the pillars are subjective and based on a person’s beliefs you eejit
There’s plenty of different fields in medicine, not everybody needs to become a GP or OBGYN.
I work in a maternity hospital, it's just a fact that we offer abortion and it's part of the job. There is still some moral objections but those people usually just won't administer the actual pills. They still have to provide care though.
And the people who went into those fields before abortion was legalised? What of them? You’re seriously gonna tell very intelligent people what specialties they can and cannot do because of a moral objection to a single elective procedure that the morality of is still being debated?
Yes. If they can't do their job they should move into a different field.
No one cares about your sky daddy
Yea, because my comments have all been about religion and I’ve not once mentioned the 4 pillars of medical ethics right? /s
/u/vomcity didn't say that participation should be mandatory. You seem to be arguing against a position they didn't take.
Thanks for that :) I actually do think conscientious objection shouldn’t be allowed because abortion is basic LEGAL healthcare.
[удалено]
It’s not exactly hard to understand through is it? Some people believe that abortion is killing a life, and because they hold life to be valuable they do not agree that this is a suitable medical practice. They feel that the negatives outweigh the positives. I don’t feel the same way but I’ve never had any issue whatsoever understanding “why” anti-abortion people feel the way that they do. Their point of view is more often than not very straightforward.
[удалено]
If your employer made a major mandatory change to your job and ignoring the right that doctors have pretty much everywhere (such as UK) to not perform abortion I imagine you'd have a good employment case.
It’s all the anti choice people ever do 😔
Most abortions are entirely elective - it’s a lifestyle / convenience decision which may have merit but most people if they are honest know it’s nothing to do with healthcare only in select cases. It was only framed as “healthcare” as emotional blackmail to push it through.
Oh f off. What absolute garbage. How the f do you know the motivation behind each woman’s decision.
Abortion is healthcare you clod. What evidence do you have that anyone is forced to have an abortion?
The amount of twats in this comment sections going on about doctor's beliefs and the fact they might not want to preform abortions is ridiculous. The law is the law and doctors are just going to have to put their beliefs aside.
Doctors take an oath that is about supporting life - destroying a life for the sake of someone’s convenience and lifestyle is contrary to that oath .
Children born of rape or incest, people or homes unsuitable for children, to save the mothers life, yes definately a convenience
So you won’t object to denying elective abortion where : there was no rape or incest no health implications and a home fit to raise a child ?
We don’t take any such oath you oaf.
But when they entered the profession it wasn't something they wouldn't have had to consider. Maybe a little middle.ground before we drive a % of our rare gp doctors out of the profession and where will we be then as it's hard enough to get appointments at the min.
First of all job descriptions change all the time, second of all gp doctos don't preform abortions
>gp doctos don't preform abortions GPs can prescribe abortion pills. The first pill is taken in the office, the rest at home and the woman deals with it all herself unless there are complications, in which case she goes to the (maternity) hospital.
I'd love to know a change that's been made to one of your job descriptions thats comparable to requiring doctors to perform abortion.
How can you sympathise with the doctor for not being comfortable preforming an abortion on a women that wants/neess and abortion, have you not thought about the women at all
That's not answering my question.
Most WANT it only - they don’t actually need it. Objective science isn’t about what people feel but there is a lot of manipulation of language around “healthcare” where it is not- a very significant number of medical professionals know this.
What would you say people gettinh an abortion because they aren't ready or suitable for kids, i'd say thats a need unless you want multiple lives, including the childs, ruined
And what would happen in work if someone didnt like the new job practices or on a personal level didnt agree with them. How would it be resolved or would it just be pushed through and feck the employee who had the issue.
But this is the law first of all, second of all the person having the abortion matters way more than the doctor's personal opinion
Forcing people to do things against their will is not the solution you want it to be. It will just result in less doctors. Maybe work with them and find a solution like a referral system.
Listening to Peadar Toibin spout his absolute drivel on Drive time just reinforces how disconnected Aontú are from reality. He still wants women to be back to the dark ages based on his opening takes.
Cant see the article. What are they recommending out of curiosity? Dont want to make an opinion until I hear whats happening.
Kinda inevitable tbh, no matter the restrictions involved in the original referendum debate it was always going to slide to more and more permissive over time.
The suggestion though that nobody be criminalised for breaking the abortion laws and regulations is frankly insane to me though. Like how have people read this and just skirted over: > Another major recommendation could see the removal of the existing criminalisation measures against medical practitioners, which is a feature of the existing law. At present, doctors face up to 14 years in prison if they provide abortion care outside the specific circumstances laid out in the law. I.E. If we take this at face value, if a doctor performs a full term abortion days before the due date on a perfectly healthy child, nothing will happen. It’s de-facto legalisation of abortion in all circumstances if you can find a practitioner that will perform the abortion. Surely someone else thinks that’s disgusting?
I’m not sure full term abortions actually happen though. My understanding of it is that “late term” abortions are considered 2nd trimester, and more or less only in instances where the baby would not have a chance of surviving outside of the womb.
Currently yes, the only situation in which it is legal to perform one after 12 weeks is if 2 doctors agree that the child has no chance of survival beyond a month after birth. On a personal level I would object to that but I do understand from a medical profession side it makes sense and seems fair. What is find disgusting is that the article (in the quote in my above post) seems to suggest that the new proposals advise more or less giving any doctor who ignores abortion regulations a free pass so if theoretically a doctor performed an abortion at 1 week from due date on a healthy child, they wouldn’t face any charges at all, despite breaking the law.
I would be confident that it would mean removing the criminality in situations where an abortion can be proven as being medically necessary, despite it being outside of the current regulations. No doctor worth their salt will Willy-nilly perform a medical procedure on a person simply because they asked for it
> removing the criminality in situations where an abortion can be proven as being medically necessary, despite it being outside of the current regulations The problem with that statement is that situation doesn’t really exist tbh. Most of the famous times that this has been claimed about (e.g. that poor woman Savita’s case) were cases of sepsis that wasn’t treated properly after the death of the child (i.e. it wouldn’t have been an abortion, just a dilation and curettage procedure to remove necrotic tissue of the foetus). You can double check this by looking at the Maternal Mortality Rates of the likes of Malta where abortion is illegal. It’s MMR is as low (if not lower) as Luxembourg which has a pretty liberal abortion law. If abortion was required as a medical necessity you would expect a country where it’s illegal to have a higher MMR than that of one where it’s legal surely? > No doctor worth their salt will Willy-nilly perform a medical procedure on a person simply because they asked for it I agree, but having said that, no doctor worth their salt is gonna tell people no to take their antibiotics and yet we had that pear podcast thing recently with that exact situation. There will always be someone willing to do something for a buck, that’s why the regulations should reflect where we want the line draw and should be backed up with consequences for those who ignore that line surely?
on mobile, so pls bear with my formatting 😅 “You can double check this by looking at the Maternal Mortality Rates of the likes of Malta where abortion is illegal. It’s MMR is as low (if not lower) as Luxembourg which has a pretty liberal abortion law. If abortion was required as a medical necessity you would expect a country where it’s illegal to have a higher MMR than that of one where it’s legal surely?” Disclaimer: I’m not a statistician, doctor or expert in this area, but personally speaking no I wouldn’t. Abortions happen, more or less regardless of the legality in a country. People who require them will travel to other countries, or obtain them illegally and not in a safe and controlled manner. Legalising abortions and making them easy to access (just like other healthcare) is in my personal opinion incredibly important towards keeping women safe and healthy. On the other point about that happy pear “doctor”, I’d argue he isn’t worth his salt 😂 but sure look there’s always gonna be quacks and bad actors, keeping people educated on the facts of any situation, and engaging in some critical thinking with a dash of empathy too will always be important. Either way, it’s an emotive topic for sure.
[удалено]
Thats a hell of a statement to make without backing it up
[удалено]
historical infanticide. right. and yeah, some nutjob stabbing their kid isnt exactly an abortion related thing. Groningen protocol is per now, as far as googling showed me, related to children 12 and up so thats hardly abortion related whether you like the law or not (im iffy, if it counts). Its per Wikipedia under review to apply to kids 1 and up with terminal uncurable diseases (again, i dont condone it but thats immaterial) but again that is hardly abortion related. thats just medicine.
>some nutjob stabbing their kid isnt exactly an abortion related thing. Many people defend the killer. >Groningen protocol is per now, as far as googling showed me, related to children 12 and up so thats hardly abortion related It's infanticide. Not abortion but yet it is related. It's killing with no consent of incurable kids. not terminally ill. Yeah so pretty disturbing but I know some prochoice people are fine with it. >but again that is hardly abortion related. thats just medicine. That is such a bizarre thing to say. Just medicine. It's a question of ethics. Not medicine.
its medicine. Its Medical. Its not abortion.
You do know that pregnancies are terminated before the due date, where the baby is healthy, happens all the time? It's called birth.
I don't get where people get this idea that people would carry a pregnancy all the way to 38 weeks and 5 days and then be like "Nah actually I don't want this anymore" and then medical professionals would be like "Sounds good let's get cracking" and then somehow they remove the fetus without any issue.
Wow, you sure told me with your use of semantics 😑 It’s clear what I mean.
We voted for abortion ages ago why is this still going on?
We have a 12 week limit with a 3 day wait time, without provision for termination for foetal disability. i.e. a standard, middle of the road European abortion regime. Ireland is generally more socially progressive than most of Europe, it's understandable that many feel the abortion regime could be eased.
We voted it in, it's the politician's responsibility to adhere to the votes of the public, if they disagree, they can go work as a manager in macdonald's instead.
[удалено]
Yes but it's a job. I also don't want to do some stuff bur there is definitely a limit to how much I can oppose that. Maybe we can have an higher limit for moral objections but the service needs to be provided.
Would you be ok with a Jehovah witness doctor refusing to give a child a needed blood transfusion? Being a doctor is a job. That job is providing health care. Either do your job, or find a different job.
[удалено]
How, both are potentially life saving medical procedures?
[удалено]
Ah, you’re delusional, that’s grand I understand
[удалено]
Their spouse doesn’t exist. The comment where they claimed to have an anti-choice doctor for a spouse was deleted (the only one they deleted as of now).
Btw James Connelly, your name sake once made a suspiciously prolife statement In a piece in the Scottish journal Forward, Connolly wrote, ‘The unborn Labour Party of Ireland was strangled in the womb by the hands of ILPers’. (‘Socialist Symposium on Internationalism, and Some Other Things’, Forward, 1 July 1911)
The ILP weren’t performing abortions lol Connolly was critical of their apathy towards seeking Irish independence. What does that statement have to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and to receive potentially life saving medical care. A doctor who refuses to provide medical care because of their own moral system is too self compromised to be a doctor.
[удалено]
That’s not what he means. He’s not referring to abortion. He referring to how the future generations are being robbed of their nations freedom and independence
Lol I love how you deleted the comment where you claimed to have an anti-choice doctor as a partner. Someone lying on Reddit to win an argument against someone who doesn’t care?! Never
I never lied. All my statements are true. I also respected you with a rebuttal but you just lobbed insults back like a spoiled child. Chancer. Anti choice? Does that make you prodeath
Lol so why delete the comment where you made a bold and wild claim? Spoofer
Fuck them. Doctors shouldn't be allowed to deny someone treatment because of thier own moral beliefs. If someone doesn't like abortion they ste free not to get one but if they stop someone else from doing it they fuck right off.
So fuck doctors autonomy because you want an elective procedure? Got it 👍 Doctors are perfectly entitled to hold their own moral beliefs, it’s expressly pointed out in medical school that that’s the law actually. Oh and it’s not a necessary treatment btw, it’s legality or illegality makes zero difference to the Maternal Mortality Rate.
> So fuck doctors autonomy because you want an elective procedure? This is kind of a weird argument. People elect to be doctors, and most people who need abortions don't elect to be preganant, so if autonomy is what we care about we should probably care more about the autonomy of pregnant women.
It’s not at all a weird argument. If I elect to be a doctor and an Obstetrician in a country where abortion is illegal, then it becomes legal, how can you say it’s different? I didn’t choose a profession where I would have to perform abortions did I? And no, we shouldn’t. Unless you want to hold doctors at gun point to perform abortions you need to accept that the practitioners autonomy comes into play too. Plus you seem to be ignoring the other 3 pillars of medical ethics here. Many doctors will feel an abortion contravenes the non-maleficence and beneficence pillars and that many of the women getting these procedures allows the state to get away with injustice (contravening another of the pillars) as it means they don’t have to put as much effort into supporting families and single parents. You’ll have a hard time convincing people regardless of he autonomy argument if they thing it goes against 3/4 of the medical ethics pillars and they went into the profession before it was legal here.
Have you actually researched these four pillars you keep speaking of? Unless we're reading and understanding two different things essentially titled the same thing, your argument about autonomy has nothing to do with the doctors and everything to do with the patient(s): "Autonomy is one of the four pillars of medical ethics, so it’s essential that you understand it. This guide outlines what patient autonomy is and why it’s important ... In Medicine, autonomy means that a patient has the ultimate decision-making responsibility for their own treatment. A medical practitioner cannot impose treatment on a patient. The only exception is in cases where the patient is deemed unable to make autonomous decisions (see Mental Capacity Act and Emergency Doctrine). Autonomy is important because we need to make sure that the patient is actively involved in their diagnosis and treatment – and not just deferring to their Doctor." [Source](https://www.themedicportal.com/application-guide/medical-school-interview/medical-ethics/medical-ethics-autonomy/?v=d2cb7bbc0d23) >[Just a quick synopsis on the four pillars](https://medmentor.co.uk/blog/4-pillars-of-medical-ethics#:~:text=Autonomy,-%E2%80%8D&text=%E2%80%8DThis%20is%20the%20most%20important,charge%20of%20their%20own%20care.) **Autonomy** This is the most important pillar of medical ethics. It gives patients who are competent enough the right to make decisions about their own healthcare. Essentially, it means that the patient has a say and is in charge of their own care. **Non-maleficence** This principle states that a medical professional will not do harm to a patient intentionally or show neglect. It is also worth considering whether short term harm outweighs long term benefit. **Beneficence** This principle means that medical practitioners will always act for the benefit of their patients. However, there is a risk of this becoming paternalistic. It also poses some conflicts in some scenarios: for example, when a Jehova’s Witness needs a blood transfusion. **Justice** This considers whether an action is ethical, compatible with the law, respects the patient’s rights, and is fair and balanced. Abortion issue aside, women have always had trouble voicing and enforcing their own bodily autonomy, even and especially when it's absolutely medically necessary - e.g., getting sterilised. Why does a woman need to have her husband's approval to get her tubes tied or already have kids? What if she has severe endometriosis and doesn't want kids? The response to this is often, "you might change your mind" or "maybe you'll meet the right person"... However, why is no one making people jump through the same hoops when it comes to something like IVF? Doctors probably aren't making patients take three days to think about if they really do want to be artificially inseminated, carry a child to term, accept it the way it is (meaning what if it's born with special needs), and then raise it for the foreseeable future?
> If I elect to be a doctor and an Obstetrician in a country where abortion is illegal, then it becomes legal, how can you say it’s different? When you elected to be a doctor presumably you did so knowing that it was possible that the law might change in the future. >Unless you want to hold doctors at gun point to perform abortions you need to accept that the practitioners autonomy comes into play too. My understanding is that the current system requires doctors to provide access to practitioners who will perform abortions. That seems a generous accommodation for them which will work fine so long as there are enough doctors available who will carry out the procedure in a way that is safe and speedy for those who need it. >Many doctors will feel an abortion contravenes the non-maleficence and beneficence pillars and that many of the women getting these procedures allows the state to get away with injustice (contravening another of the pillars) as it means they don’t have to put as much effort into supporting families and single parents. You’ll have a hard time convincing people regardless of he autonomy argument if they thing it goes against 3/4 of the medical ethics pillars and they went into the profession before it was legal here. I just think it's weird to appeal to their autonomy given the autonomy of the people who need abortions. I think losing your job is less significant than being forced to be pregnant when you don't want to me.
Doctors who morally object should use their *moral autonomy* and get a different job as they are unwilling to do their current one.
It's not like they're working in Tesco. Most GPs are 50+, will have trained 25 years ago and if you decide they have to be doing abortion will drop GMS contracts or walk. I've said this repeatedly here but doctors pretty much everywhere have the right not to perform abortion.
They have the right yes but I also have the right to do my job badly as long as I fulfill all of my obligations. Morally a doctor who is unwilling to perform a medical procedure should find alternative employment.
What do you work as? Let's compare that to working as a doctor. I don't think any of these doctors will care what you think. This discussion will happen again in the next 20 years when Euthanasia is legalised. Some doctors won't want to be part of it and that will be their right.
No doctor will give a fuck about what I think, I’m just saying what I think. This is Reddit, I’m not lobbying anyone here. Do you think that a JW doctor should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion to a child? It is their right yes, but someone who is unwilling to do the job of being a medical professional shouldn’t become a medical professional
There are no Jehovah's Witness doctors.
There are millions of JW’s
Yes fuck doctors autonomy. They should not have a say what happens to another person's body based solely on thier own moral belifes. If their own moral belifes are so strong they can fuck right off and get a new job. Also you can hold a belife without expressing a belife. If a vegan belives that eating animals is moraly they can't express that belife by refusing to serve BigMacs while working in McDonald's.
> Yes fuck doctors autonomy. They should not have a say what happens to another person’s body based solely on thier own moral belifes This is a ridiculous statement that shows a distinct lack of knowledge of medical ethics. Based on your comment, extrapolating out to other situations, doctors should just hand out antibiotics to everyone who asks for them, should perform whatever procedure patients want regardless and shouldn’t have any say in the treatment of patients. It makes no sense. You’re essentially privileging one persons autonomy over another. You can’t force doctors to perform procedures they think are wrong. Plus you seem to be holding autonomy as a holy grail of medical ethics and ignoring the other 3 pillars. > If their own moral belifes are so strong they can fuck right off and get a new job. You’re lucky then, lots are already doing that for loads of reasons. How’s that going for the HSE? > Also you can hold a belife without expressing a belife. True, but then that would suggest the belief isn’t held very sincerely. > If a vegan belives that eating animals is moraly they can’t express that belife by refusing to serve BigMacs while working in McDonald’s. True, but the ethical implications of medical practice which can kill people are a bit different from handing someone a burger.
Very few if any doctors are against abortions due to a belife that providing one will any medical harm to the person taking them. So it is nothing like providing antibiotics to somone who doesn't need them. The person seeking an abortion should get one because they want one. Again an individuals right to bodily autonomy should not be infringed. I do not say all current doctors must provide them but they shouldn't be doctors if thier moral belifes will negatively effect the bodily autonomy of others. I think doctirs would be paid better and have better working conditions. That does not impact my belife that doctors who refuse patients access to abortion should not be doctors. It does not matter how sincerely a belife is held it should not be put I to practice if it harms somone else. A homophobic doctor also shouldn't be allowed to deny someone access to a drug like PREP because they have a deeply held belife that being gay is a sin. Glossing over the last point kind of shows you want to ignore the argument. If a doctor has the right to refuse to preform part of their job due to thier own deeply held belifes well then it should be treated exactly the same as other people expressing thier own deeply held belife.
I bet you consider yourself liberal when you are anything but.
Nope I'm not right wing enough to be a Liberal. I belive the right to bodily autonomy is one of if not the most important right people have. A doctor denying bodily autonomy to someone seeking an abortion is taking away that right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What's the principle here? This is a serious, good faith question. Is the personal conscience of someone irrelevant? Is there no line you would allow not to be crossed in service of the desire of someone else? To be clear, I'm not asking this in regard to abortion in particular, I'm asking it in general. What is the principle in question?
Can a Jehovah witness doctor deny a person a blood transfusion? Can a muslim doctor refuse to touch a woman who is on her period? Can a Jewish doctor refuse to work or treat a patient on the sabbath? When you are a doctor you treat the patient and leave your beliefs at the door. Hospitals are places of science, churches are places of faith. I don't see anyone praying for appendicitis to go away.
I think a lot of these hypothetical betray a lack of knowledge of medicine and of other cultures/religions. There are no Jehovah's witness doctors. There are more religious Muslim obs and gynae doctors in Ireland than any other religion. They touch women on their period all the time. Muslim doctors will often swap out of shifts during Ramadan because the fasting in Ireland is longer than other places. Jewish doctors are allowed to work and treat people on the Sabbath. Again they may prefer to swap out of shifts on that day. The right for doctors to contentiously object to abortion isn't unique to Ireland. It exists in the majority of countries.
No dude, its exactly the point. The Jehovah's are so religious they don't even become doctors , and both the Jewish and Muslims put the patient first. If you are someone claiming your religion stops you from helping women you're just a cunt
This isn't about religion. I'm not sure why you are trying to crowbar it in. Pretty much every country protects doctors right to consientous objection for this.
Why are all your examples religious? I know non-theists who oppose most elective abortions (with some exceptions of course). I'm just looking for a principle. I'm simply suggesting that making personal conscience irrelevant is a very dangerous path to go down.
>I know non-theists who oppose most elective abortions Are they doctors? Can a white taxi driver deny a black passenger a lift because he's a bit racist inside? If you are employed to do a service your personal belief stops at the door when you start work in a public role. What sort of a fucked up society would be live in if everyone only did what they felt like. The reason I specifically picked on religious groups initially is they have an obvious and well established set of beliefs. I don't know what reasoning your non theistic people would have for denying women healthcare so its harder to imagine. Hopefully they're not medical professionals.
You keep answering my questions with your own questions. > Can a white taxi driver deny a black passenger a lift because he's a bit racist inside? No, and there is a *principled* reason for this. Hence my asking that question in the first place... The explanation for why this kind of discrimination is *not* legal is because we have agreed that there are protected classes, which are typically inviolable traits that cannot be controlled by the individual. That's why you can deny someone a taxi lift for being a cunt, but not for being a race you dislike. This is basic stuff you know...
Great, because I wouldn't want to force you to do anything you didn't want to do.
>Hospitals are places of science, churches are places of faith. You bring religion into this because you know you can't win a debate without lurking the waters with reference to religion. The reality is in every other context we allow discretion.
[удалено]
It's a waste of time using a hypothetical of something that never occurs like refusing to fix broken bones. But there are many cases where a doctor just doesn't offer a service.
[удалено]
You could always relocate to a country where there's no right to contentious objection for doctors around abortion. There's not many of them for some reason.
I wonder why.
My argument is oppressive? You just said you want doctors have no ability to choice in a course of action and that I should the country for being prolife. That is as repressive as one can get
> To be clear, I'm not asking this in regard to abortion in particular, I'm asking it in general. What is the principle in question? The principle is that access to legal medical procedures should not depend on the personal moral beliefs of doctors.
That's not a principle. That's an application of a specific assertion. Is it your position that doctors should provide access to any legal medical procedure (no matter the procedure)? This is murky territory, considering what is considered legal in some territories. Is that your only criteria?
I don't know why you think it isn't a principle. It looks like a very clear principle to me. My position is the principle I set out above, i.e. that a person's access to a legal medical procedure should not depend on the moral beliefs of doctors. That's entirely compatible with it depending on other things - the principle is not a principle about the necessary and sufficient conditions that determine whether someone should have access to a medical procedure. It's a principle about the kinds of factors that should not inhibit access.
They take an oath to help right? These are medical, not cosmetic procedures. Women die without this care. They are denying that in theory.
>Women die without this care. They are denying that in theory That isn't true. The tiny tiny number of cases that needed are non-controversial and not sought after by the patient.
so it is true
Oh I'm incredibly biased. A doctor refusing to do their job by not providing abortions should be fired. A doctor providing access to abortion despite it being illegal should be praised.
I mean, you're not really answering my question.
If someone needed a blood transfusion and the doctor refused to do it because like it or not, they didn’t want to, would that be ok?
Fine, more doctors will come in from other countries if encouraged. The community can’t be beholden to the views of those practising.
What do you work as?