Reproductive Rights, Who Needs 'Em?

[annuin]

Stuff like this really pisses me off worse than you can imagine.

Roe vs. Wade and various related reproductive rights are going down the toilet faster than you can blink...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/09/15/abortion.refusals.ap/index.html

Comments

[captainflux.livejournal.com]

You can just see the hate in that pharmacist's eyes. I've been put right off my breakfast now.

[catdraco.livejournal.com]

I think it's perfectly fair for a doctor to refuse to perform a procedure that is seriously in conflict with his/her moral beliefs, particularly where that procedure will directly cause a death. On the other hand, his/her duty of care as a medical practitioner requires him/her to refer the patient to another practioner who doesn't have that objection, which is the part of this legislation that worries me (it seems a little open to interpretation).

Even without the question of religion, the Hippocratic Oath alone can be grounds for refusing to perform an abortion or referring a patient for the procedure. Abortions get rid of a baby, but they do a hell of a lot of psychological harm to the woman long term - I've seen the effects lasting 30 years later. Which is not to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, only to say that refusing to perform one can be a valid medical decision as well as a moral one.

But hey - my views on abortion are pretty obvious, given my own affiliations. =)

[tanthe.livejournal.com]

Well, my biggest problem with all of this is not that a doctor refuses to do the procedure, they can have that choice not to perform it, but that they try to enforce their own morals and religious convictions upon their patient, especially by refusing even to give a referral or more information that the patient might need.

It's not up to them to decide whether or not the patient should be able to get the treatment. If they don't want to treat the patient, send them to someone who will, but don't withhold the information just because it's a procedure you don't morally agree with yourself.

As for whether the abortion is the right choice for the person, that's up to that particular person. That's also what pre-procedure consulations and counselling are for. Your doctor should be able to make you aware of ALL the options availible, not take away your options, and thereby your right to choose.

In regards to psychological harm, that varies per person. Some will, and some won't suffer from it down the track. Either way, it was their own choice, and you should weigh the options carefully, and then take responsibility for your choice. But that's an entirely unrelated tangent.

And the running theme here for me remains the same... choice. I don't feel it's okay for one person's religion to narrow down my LEGAL choices.

As for the Hippocratic oath and taking a life, I guess that also depends on your definition of what a human is. In most cases, that which is aborted is only a human in the potential sense, not the actual and legal sense, such as it stands now. But then that also wasn't part of the scope of this article or discussion.

But hey - my views on abortion are pretty obvious, given my own affiliations. =)

And you're, of course, entitled to them. However, were you my doctor, I would certainly resent if you point-blank refused to refer me to someone who would help me when you yourself would not.

[catdraco.livejournal.com]

Sure. The thing is that I (personally) would refuse to perform the procedure, but I would explain that it's a personal religious conviction, and Doctors x, y and z could all assist. That's the part of the legislation that bothers me... duty of care includes information and referral. It's called "professional detachment". =)