• 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!

Abortion experience in the UK.

If participating in abortion plays on a health care practitioners conscience should they...

  • be able to object (not have to participate in abortion)

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • not be able to object (have to participate in abortion)

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • Total voters
    9

COresearcher

New Member
Hi all,

Hope it is ok to post here for this purpose- please let me know if not (moderators).

I’m posting in order to recruit participants for my PhD research on conscientious objection to abortion. The research has been recommended by the Economic and Social Research Council and funded by Liverpool John Moores University (Ethical Clearance Reference: 20/NAH/001).

I will be interviewing individuals who have accessed abortion in the UK, and are over the age of 18. This is an opportunity for you to have your say on abortion law, share your experiences, and contribute to research that has the potential to inform abortion policy and guidelines. You do not need any prior understanding of conscientious objection and abortion law to take part. To find out more please visit:

www.coabortionexperience.com.

It will be interesting to include participants who have accessed abortion and have religious beliefs, as health care practitioners conscientious objections are often based on religion. I feel it is a voice that needs to be heard within this research.


This isn't a thread intended to spark debate around pro-choice v pro-life.

Thank you,
Stay safe
:)
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Hi all,

Hope it is ok to post here for this purpose- please let me know if not (moderators).

I’m posting in order to recruit participants for my PhD research on conscientious objection to abortion. The research has been recommended by the Economic and Social Research Council and funded by Liverpool John Moores University (Ethical Clearance Reference: 20/NAH/001).

I will be interviewing individuals who have accessed abortion in the UK, and are over the age of 18. This is an opportunity for you to have your say on abortion law, share your experiences, and contribute to research that has the potential to inform abortion policy and guidelines. You do not need any prior understanding of conscientious objection and abortion law to take part. To find out more please visit:

www.coabortionexperience.com.

It will be interesting to include participants who have accessed abortion and have religious beliefs, as health care practitioners conscientious objections are often based on religion. I feel it is a voice that needs to be heard within this research.


This isn't a thread intended to spark debate around pro-choice v pro-life.

Thank you,
Stay safe
:)


I voted 'object'. I don't think you should force a doctor to do a procedure if they think it is morally wrong. IMHO.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Why have you put up a poll if your purpose is for recruitment? :shrug:

Is this theoretical practitioner in a public or private setting? For me, that makes a difference.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Hi all,

Hope it is ok to post here for this purpose- please let me know if not (moderators).

I’m posting in order to recruit participants for my PhD research on conscientious objection to abortion. The research has been recommended by the Economic and Social Research Council and funded by Liverpool John Moores University (Ethical Clearance Reference: 20/NAH/001).

I will be interviewing individuals who have accessed abortion in the UK, and are over the age of 18. This is an opportunity for you to have your say on abortion law, share your experiences, and contribute to research that has the potential to inform abortion policy and guidelines. You do not need any prior understanding of conscientious objection and abortion law to take part. To find out more please visit:

www.coabortionexperience.com.

It will be interesting to include participants who have accessed abortion and have religious beliefs, as health care practitioners conscientious objections are often based on religion. I feel it is a voice that needs to be heard within this research.


This isn't a thread intended to spark debate around pro-choice v pro-life.

Thank you,
Stay safe
:)
This is a long slippery slope.

Where does it stop?
If I were a doctor, could I refuse to treat someone who eats meat? What about someone recovering from a heroin overdose or a fat person?
Look at the mother who died in Ireland (IIRC) because the RC hospital refused to treat her. It was an eptopic pregnancy.

Then you get to other professions, if you are a butcher and a Muslim, could you refuse to serve pork?

If you sign up to a job you take the rough with the smooth, if you object you hold your nose and get on with it. Otherwise get another job.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is a long slippery slope.

Where does it stop?
If I were a doctor, could I refuse to treat someone who eats meat? What about someone recovering from a heroin overdose or a fat person?
Look at the mother who died in Ireland (IIRC) because the RC hospital refused to treat her. It was an eptopic pregnancy.

Then you get to other professions, if you are a butcher and a Muslim, could you refuse to serve pork?

If you sign up to a job you take the rough with the smooth, if you object you hold your nose and get on with it. Otherwise get another job.

I think in life-or-death emergencies, the Hippocratic Oath requires them to help someone who needs it. But if it's not an emergency and there are other reasonable options available, then that would be different.

Physicians have been known to drop patients (at least here in the U.S.; not sure about the U.K.). For example, if a patient refuses to go along with a physician's prescribed treatment plan, if they refuse to take their meds, if they miss too many appointments, etc. - the physician might say "I'm not going to treat you anymore."

As for performing abortions, I'm not sure if that requires a certain specialty, or if it's something that "any doctor" could be ordered to do. You certainly wouldn't want a chiropractor performing an abortion. So, if someone refuses on the basis that they don't feel qualified enough to do it (and if they've never done it before), I could see that.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
I think in life-or-death emergencies, the Hippocratic Oath requires them to help someone who needs it. But if it's not an emergency and there are other reasonable options available, then that would be different.

Physicians have been known to drop patients (at least here in the U.S.; not sure about the U.K.). For example, if a patient refuses to go along with a physician's prescribed treatment plan, if they refuse to take their meds, if they miss too many appointments, etc. - the physician might say "I'm not going to treat you anymore."

As for performing abortions, I'm not sure if that requires a certain specialty, or if it's something that "any doctor" could be ordered to do. You certainly wouldn't want a chiropractor performing an abortion. So, if someone refuses on the basis that they don't feel qualified enough to do it (and if they've never done it before), I could see that.
My problem is that abortions are not routine; they are a last resort.
When an abortion is undertaken it is a team that carries out the procedure; doctors, nurses, anesthetists, even down to porters and cleaners.
Religious reasons are not good reasons to object; it's like objecting to operate because someone is a Democrat and you're a Republican.
The woman is going through a horrible time, she doesn't need more pain inflicting on her.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I voted 'object'. I don't think you should force a doctor to do a procedure if they think it is morally wrong. IMHO.
I voted "not be able to object."

As long as nobody's forced to become a doctor, no doctor is forced to provide an abortion.

If someone freely chooses to become a doctor, then they're freely adopting all the ethical requirements that go along with this.

Abortion services are part of the established medical standard of care. It's completely unacceptable for a doctor to impose their personal beliefs on their patients by refusing to abide by this normal standard of care.

If someone doesn't want to ever have anything to do with abortions, they're free to pursue a specialty that doesn't ever get involved with abortions (and there are plenty of them) or pursue some other career path entirely.

Nobody is entitled to be a doctor, let alone a sub-standard doctor.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Medical practitioners knew the law and requirements of the job before they obtained their license so they should not be able to object If they don't want to participate in selected procedures then they are welcome to find work flipping burgers
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Medical practitioners knew the law and requirements of the job before they obtained their license so they should not be able to object If they don't want to participate in selected procedures then they are welcome to find work flipping burgers
And even if the requirements did change... too bad for them.

I became a licensed engineer before my province had requirements to report professional development and continuing education. I still have to do it.

I don't get to say "oh - I became an engineer before this was a thing, so you can't change the terms of my deal. I'm not going to bother with reporting my professional development hours."

The same principle applies to medicine.

In fact, it applies even moreso to medicine. Anyone who became a doctor expecting that the standard of practice would never change over their career is probably someone too ignorant to be a doctor.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
And even if the requirements did change... too bad for them.

I became a licensed engineer before my province had requirements to report professional development and continuing education. I still have to do it.

I don't get to say "oh - I became an engineer before this was a thing, so you can't change the terms of my deal. I'm not going to bother with reporting my professional development hours."

The same principle applies to medicine.

In fact, it applies even moreso to medicine. Anyone who became a doctor expecting that the standard of practice would never change over their career is probably someone too ignorant to be a doctor.

It is the same in teaching, accountancy and i believe the legal profession in Europe. I have no reason to doubt most countries don't have the same requirement.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
I voted "not be able to object."

As long as nobody's forced to become a doctor, no doctor is forced to provide an abortion.

If someone freely chooses to become a doctor, then they're freely adopting all the ethical requirements that go along with this.

Abortion services are part of the established medical standard of care. It's completely unacceptable for a doctor to impose their personal beliefs on their patients by refusing to abide by this normal standard of care.

If someone doesn't want to ever have anything to do with abortions, they're free to pursue a specialty that doesn't ever get involved with abortions (and there are plenty of them) or pursue some other career path entirely.

Nobody is entitled to be a doctor, let alone a sub-standard doctor.


"...then they're freely adopting all the ethical requirements that go along with this."

So performing an abortion is ethical?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"...then they're freely adopting all the ethical requirements that go along with this."

So performing an abortion is ethical?
Yes. And refusing to do one - edit: other than on valid medical grounds - after freely choosing a job that involves performing abortions is unethical.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Yes. Amd refusing to do one after freely choosing a job that involves performing abortions is unethical.

Interesting view. I think it nonsense, but that's OK.

Abortion = murder = unethical. But I would imagine you think that is nonsense, yes?
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Are there other areas of medicine where you think doctors aren't ethically obliged to meet the established standard of care, or is this the only one?

Established by who? What standards? Majority opinion?

But good question. Well I can think of some procedures that doctors should have every right to not perform. For example, hormone replacement therapy for children who decide they want to change. I amnot sure how mainstream that is yet (but I find it appalling). My list would be short because murder (abortion) is not, in my humble opinion, like other procedures.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Seems you edited your post after I replied.

Abortion = murder = unethical. But I would imagine you think that is nonsense, yes?
If you decide not to get an abortion for yourself based on your own personal beliefs, no problem.

If you decide to prevent others from getting abortions based on your beliefs, problem. I'd say it's more "evil" than "nonsense," though.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Seems you edited your post after I replied.


If you decide not to get an abortion for yourself based on your own personal beliefs, no problem.

If you decide to prevent others from getting abortions based on your beliefs, problem. I'd say it's more "evil" than "nonsense," though.

A doctor not performing the procedure because they think it is morally wrong is not preventing someone from getting the procedure.

Doctors are to do no harm. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life which, IMHO, is harmful. But I know you disagree so...
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Established by who? What standards? Majority opinion?
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept, here's an article that talks about it in general terms:

Understanding Standard of Care for Patients

But good question. Well I can think of some procedures that doctors should have every right to not perform. For example, hormone replacement therapy for children who decide they want to change. I amnot sure how mainstream that is yet (but I find it appalling). My list would be short because murder (abortion) is not, in my humble opinion, like other procedures.
Sounds like it's not so much that you want doctors to be free to exercise their consciences as you want medical care you object to to not be offered at all.

I don't get the sense that you're interested in leaving room for the consciences of doctors who support things like abortion and HRT for children.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A doctor not performing the procedure because they think it is morally wrong is not preventing someone from getting the procedure.
It certainly is in the short term.

Whether it's preventing it in the long term depends on a number of factors, such as whether the anti-choice doctor is willing to give a referral (and whether there's another doctor who can be referred to in the area at all).

Doctors are to do no harm. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life which, IMHO, is harmful. But I know you disagree so...
So doctors should be obligated, then, to provide services that prevent abortion (e.g. provide prescriptions for contraception, if this is in their scope of practice)?

And again: it sounds like you're interested in just getting rid of abortion, not giving doctors "conscience rights."

If we were really talking about doctors' freedom of conscience, we would also be talking about the right of doctors to provide services, not just refuse them... for instance in cases where a patient seeks an abortion and the doctor agrees that an abortion is appropriate, but the doctor's hospital refuses to allow the procedure.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept, here's an article that talks about it in general terms:

Understanding Standard of Care for Patients


Sounds like it's not so much that you want doctors to be free to exercise their consciences as you want medical care you object to to not be offered at all.

I don't get the sense that you're interested in leaving room for the consciences of doctors who support things like abortion and HRT for children.

The first sentence on that webpage you cite:

"Is the medical care provided by your doctor in compliance with what other providers in his specialty do for their patients in the same circumstances?"

So if I am a doctor and think abortion is wrong I should still have to perform the procedure because other doctors do it? Nonsense.

As for your subsequent comments, that is not at all what I said or think. My position is very simple. If a doctor thinks abortion is wrong then you should not be able to force her to perform it. Would I like those procedures outlawed? Yes. But if/while legal then there are some procedures that should be up to the doctor to perform or not. A life-saving procedure is all together different. Yeah I know a (tiny) percentage of abortions may fall into that category. But most are elective.
 
Top