• 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

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
If you don't want to educate yourself, I'm not going to make it my problem.

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.
That's my position as well: anyone whose conscience will not allow them to practice medicine properly should be free to quit.

Would I like those procedures outlawed? Yes. But if/while legal then there are some procedures that should be up to the doctor.
If it's "up to the doctor," then the doctor would get to decide to provide the service as well as refuse.

I think you're pushing for "conscience" as a first step toward outright banning of the service.

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.
Pregnancy is potentially life-threatening in every instance. It's not your place to decide for someone else how much risk they should be willing to endure.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
If you don't want to educate yourself, I'm not going to make it my problem.


That's my position as well: anyone whose conscience will not allow them to practice medicine properly should be free to quit.


If it's "up to the doctor," then the doctor would get to decide to provide the service as well as refuse.

I think you're pushing for "conscience" as a first step toward outright banning of the service.


Pregnancy is potentially life-threatening in every instance. It's not your place to decide for someone else how much risk they should be willing to provide.


Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
You want to impose your personal views on people who don't share them, and cause them harm as a result. You advocate taking away agency from pregnant people and responsibility from medical professionals. You're not going to convince me that this is a good thing.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I think it depends on how serious the situation is. If it is a life-threatening situation, they should not be able to object. If it is not, they should be able to personally bow out but provide information or a referral. I think that is fair.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
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.
It is not the accepted standard for treating transsexualism to give HRT to children. You generally have to be at least 16 or 18. I'm not sure why people keep repeating this nonsense.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think it depends on how serious the situation is. If it is a life-threatening situation, they should not be able to object. If it is not, they should be able to personally bow out but provide information or a referral. I think that is fair.
The issue with making the distinction based on "life-threatening situations" is that it often isn't clear what is and isn't life-threatening until after the fact.

And the requirement to provide a referral has gotten pushback here. Some doctors have argued that even providing a referral still means participating in the service they object to.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The issue with making the distinction based on "life-threatening situations" is that it often isn't clear what is and isn't life-threatening until after the fact.

And the requirement to provide a referral has gotten pushback here. Some doctors have argued that even providing a referral still means participating in the service they object to.
I think my position is as fair as I can make it. I couldn't force my doctor to give me HRT when he chose to be an obstinate prick about it. I had to get another doctor. Life sucks sometimes.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
You want to impose your personal views on people who don't share them, and cause them harm as a result. You advocate taking away agency from pregnant people and responsibility from medical professionals. You're not going to convince me that this is a good thing.

What you said is not true of course, but if you need to make things up to soothe your ego, that is OK with me brother. Kind of sad, but no sweat off of my back.
 
Top