Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem is that those are only your personal beliefs, in regards to abortion at any rate. If you want to enforce your beliefs upon others you need more than that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
What enforcement?
A doctor not wanting to perform an abortion doesn't magically blacklist that patient from ever receiving the procedure from any other doctor.
There is no "enforcement" here.
This may be hard for you to believe - but some people become doctors because they have a desire to save lives - not end them.
The government should not get to decide that only pro-choice people should get to be doctors.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That's a noble goal, but not realistic, and future and current doctors must accept that they cannot and will not save everyone.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You may have a point in your last sentence. I am not sure if I am for the proposed action in the OP. But arguably abortion is not ending a "human" life. What makes abortion legal is that embryos and fetuses are not thought to be "human".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Doctors that were with the ages and the terminally ill know this. Their noble goal is to try to see that the person goes through a minimum amount of pain. Many old people sign a form indicating that they do not want heroic attempts made to save their lives.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
None of which has to do with "God forgive us" for abortion.
PS. There are alternatives to chemo and med students ought to lend their instructors money. You should lend me some for instructing you in the ways of the Lord!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When it comes to cancer the treatments are pretty much limited to chemo, radiation, and surgery, at least in the advanced stages. Though it would be interesting to see if you had anything else.None of which has to do with "God forgive us" for abortion.
PS. There are alternatives to chemo and med students ought to lend their instructors money. You should lend me some for instructing you in the ways of the Lord!
If I was looking for something "godly," I certainly wouldn't try to find it with you.None of which has to do with "God forgive us" for abortion.
PS. There are alternatives to chemo and med students ought to lend their instructors money. You should lend me some for instructing you in the ways of the Lord!
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Two points of view claiming the moral high-ground that are mutually opposed? Do you not find that intriguing? I mean.. it was interesting enough for you to start this thread...
As I pointed out, just because a patient wants an unethical procedure, doesn't mean he should get one. Things like Abortion and Assisted Suicide are exceptions to a general rule rather than forming the basis of the general rule.
Right, so if a person goes to a doctor and says, "I want you to assist me in suicide", the doctor should be able to say, "no, I don't do that". And it doesn't matter if the patient believes that he needs a particular operation, you shouldn't be able to compel a doctor to perform operations against his moral conscious. And I imagine if a person did come to a doctor in Canada saying he wanted to die, the doctor's first reaction might be to get that person some counseling and unravel the deeper picture of why he wants to kill himself as opposed to immediately acquiescing to the patient's "need". At least, I would hope so. The doctor is going to have to make a moral judgment, one-way or another.
Deeper than that, if you have doctors that are interested in doing the right thing... and you want to prevent them from learning medicine... well, that's a bit strange. Especially since, how is a person to make decisions about the ethics of some situations without a full knowledge of the specifics? Why would we only want doctors who don't care about the ethics of their actions to learn medicine?
Maybe try re-reading the OP.
It's already a given - at least in this country - that abortion and medical assistance in dying are a part of the standard of care, and that patients are entitled to receive these services according to the relevant guidelines.
The OP is intended to ask this:
- given that these services - along with others - are part of the legal, ethical, established standard of care, and
- given that some practitioners refuse to take part in them, even when they're part of the practitioner's normal duties, and even when this refusal has the effect of denying patients services to which they're entitled,
... how should we respond?
THAT'S what this thread is about.
Abortion and medical assistance in dying aren't unethical. Both have an established place in the standard of care. The ship has sailed on that question.
If it's in a situation where medically assisted dying would be in line with the relevant guidelines, no: the doctor shouldn't be able to do that.
Under current rules, the doctor has two options:
- "okay - I'll help you with that," or
- "okay, but I'll have to get another doctor to help you with that."
A summary of the guidelines - at least for my province - are here if you're curious:
Medical Assistance in Dying - Health Care Professionals - MOHLTC
Choosing to needlessly prolong the suffering of a patient against the will of the patient is not "doing the right thing."
The fact that we do want doctors who care about ethics is the entire reason why some people are suggesting to screen out med students who would put their personal beliefs ahead of the needs of their patients.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
That's telling.
Just see how that works out for you in rotation as a resident. Maybe your roll of the dice would work out, or maybe you'd find out just how seriously universities take academic dishonesty.Simple solution... Just lie, and say you 'would' do it.
After you get your degree, try to convince others on how dirty abortion and suicide are, and convince them not to perform them.
...And wear Catholic scrubs.
St. Agatha's Nursing Scrubs fabric by magneticcatholic on Spoonflower - custom fabric | Fabric, Spoonflower, Custom fabric
Doctors take an oath to save lives, not end them. Many of them might be willing to perform abortions and assisted suicide if that's something they believe is right and is in agreement with the law, and that's up to them, but I think it's wrong to force a doctor to perform something that is opposite to their goal: to save lives.
The medical field is broad enough for all kinds of doctors: those who wouldn't accept to end a life no matter the situation, and those who can see death as an act of kindness in particular circumstances. Both should be respected, both can find ways to practice their jobs brilliantly.
I don't see any good reason to force them, or anyone else to do something that goes against their beliefs. All this ideas are moving our society closer and closer to dictatorship and further away from individual freedom.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Hippocratic oath has changed over the years and is not quite the same as in the past. Nor is it the only oath sworn. Though I do agree with most of your post. I am prochoice but I think that it would be an error to exclude those that would openly admit that they could not do an abortion or an assisted suicide:
Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia
Many versions of the have "First do no harm" or words to that effect in them. In many cases it could be argued that not giving an abortion or aiding in a suicide would be doing harm. But as I said I would not force a doctor to do this. But it is a relief for many when they can find a doctor that can help them when stage four cancer or some other disease gets so bad that one cannot live with it any longer. Many doctors can make those decisions with a clear conscience. And they often tend to be doctors that specialize in those fields and understand how painful the end of life can be.
Do you seriously believe that when, say, a Catholic hospital needlessly prolongs the suffering of a terminal cancer patient against the wishes of the patient, their actions have anything at all to do with saving lives?
There is enough room for them; that's not the issue. If it weren't for people who want to base patient care decisions on their own personal values over of medical decision-making and the wishes of their patient, everyone could coexist in harmony.
If med students who were against abortion only ever became dermatologists and never OB-GYNs, or the ones who were against medically assisted dying became dentists instead, or the ones against birth control became orthopedic surgeons instead of family doctors (and if religious organizations didn't run hospitals), there wouldn't be a problem.
These conflicts between doctor "conscience" and the medical care that patients are entitled to could be avoided very easily by the doctors themselves. The fact that enough of them *don't* bother to avoid these conflicts is why the rest of us are left to manage what to do when these conflicts arise.
Patient care. That's the reason. Patients are entitled to receive the standard of care. When doctors are allowed to abdicate their duty to meet that standard, patients suffer.
I see less of an imposition on freedom in steering a med school applicant to their second-choice career path than I do in denying patients medically necessary care.
Patients often aren't in a position to choose their doctor or hospital. They certainly didn't choose their disease or injury. If you want to worry about someone whose liberty is at risk, worry about them.
There are people who believe with deep, personal conviction that it's child abuse to raise a child in Christianity. I'm sure that some of them are fertility specialists.
Do you think that a person like this should base the decision about whether you or other members of your church should get help having a child on:
- sound medical judgement, a medical code of ethics and the standard of care, or
- their personal, deeply-held values and convictions?
Think hard.
The patient gets to choose to have an abortion, not the specific devices and therapies employed. The patient can refuse the physicians recommendations, but not make choices for him or her. A medical office is not a 7-Eleven, where you can just go in and order a cardiogram, for example, like it's a breakfast burrito. The physician needs to agree.
You can't compel your doctor to prescribe morphine, but your doctor may agree that it is justified and agree to prescribe it. Don't forget, the state expects the physician to protect the patient's best medical interests, and is responsible for his or her medical decisions.
Doctors should be willing to meet the needs of their patients in the manner that best comports with best medical practices and standard of care.
I looked at that, and found it inaccurate:
Hospice eligibility requirements:
- Patient has been diagnosed with a life-limiting condition with a prognosis of six months or less if their disease runs its normal course
- Frequent hospitalizations in the past six months
- Progressive weight loss (taking into consideration edema weight)
- Increasing weakness, fatigue, and somnolence
- A change in cognitive and functional abilities
- Compromised Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) such as eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring/walking, and continence
- Deteriorating mental abilities
- Recurrent Infections
- Skin breakdown
- Specific decline in condition
I don't consider that a factor. One could call them human or not, and it wouldn't change the moral calculus for me. It also doesn't matter if we call the aborted embryo or fetus a person or a baby. For me, the issue is based solely on who gets to make the decision - the church using the might of the state, or the pregnant woman, and the fairly certain knowledge that the procedure is not cruel or terrifying to the potential abortus.
I hope not. Opioids suppress respiration - an iffy choice for somebody with a severe respiratory problem : "Common side effects of opioid administration include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression."
The state government grants the license to practice medicine in each state, and can suspend it.
Why does that matter?
Furthermore, that's the pregnant woman's call. She decides what she considers a need.
It’s been a year, so I can’t exactly remember what it was. It was extra strength something. Codeine perhaps? I remember that being on the label somewhere. In any case it was one of those drugs that the doctors have to turn addicts away from and is available only through prescription. So it must have been based on something with a kick to it lolIt was supposed to relax my chest and therefore my breathing. But if I fought off the drowsiness, I ended up high as a kite.
You contradict yourself a few times here on perspective.
Ok, the doctor has some discretion as to what treatments are appropriate
And the doctor also has some discretion to deny requested treatment.
That should include that doctor's concept of medical ethics. Many consider euthanasia as contrary to medical ethics
For others, it does. That definition becomes core to the ethics of abortion
But earlier, you referred to the doctor choosing appropriate care. Which is it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do not think that one has to have all of those to be considered to qualify for hospice. That was not my point. I would think that there are quite a few combinations that would work, But yes, number one alone is enough to qualify. My father has qualified for hospice twice. The first time we were assured that it was not necessarily that serious. I think that he had more of a combination of the other factors. The second time it was the first case. But he "graduated" from hospice twice. The second time he was even put on a Fentanyl patch that they eventually weaned him off of after he graduated. He is one tough old bird.