Against abortion or assisted dying? No med school for you

[Shadow Wolf]

Abortion and Assisted Suicide have been around since ancient times and the ethics of such procedures have always been called into question. The dominant moral and ethical position from history has generally been opposed to abortion and assisted suicide as indicated, for example, in the earliest form of the Hippocratic Oath. Of course, there have always been physicians willing to carry out these procedures anyway.

Throughout history it's also been common to leave physically deformed infants, sometimes healthy girls, out in the wilderness to die if not kill them outright. And of course things like honor killings and sepuku have been practiced. Let's not fool ourselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing in the right up says that they consider prayer equally effective as medicine. It just states that they are against abortion and/or euthanasia as something they would be willing to preform on conscientious grounds not even necessarily religious.

They are also not putting religion over health and safety. They just don't want participate in 2 procedures that are in the minority anyway.

In doing so, they *are* putting religion ahead of health and safety.

And remember that while it was assisted dying that's pushing the Alberta legislation, the "conscience" legislation, if passed, would allow doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc., to refuse to meet the standard of care in all sorts of ways.

Other issues that have arisen in recent cases:

- refusal to prescribe birth control
- refusal to treat trans patients at all

Also keep in mind that doctors in rural areas have usually received a large government grant to set up their practice there on the premise that they would actually provide normal, standard care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On a related note Ohio currently leads the nation in lunacy:

Ohio Republicans File Bill Forcing Doctors to “Reimplant Ectopic Pregnancy”

"A new bill, HB 413, sponsored by nearly two dozen Republicans in the Ohio House, would take “all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn child” including taking a (potentially fatal) ectopic pregnancy and reimplanting it into the woman’s uterus."

"
Ohio’s move on ectopic pregnancies — where an embryo implants on the mother’s fallopian tube rather than her uterus rendering the pregnancy unviable — is one of the most extreme bills to date.

“I don’t believe I’m typing this again but, that’s impossible,” wrote Ohio obstetrician and gynecologist Dr David Hackney on Twitter. “We’ll all be going to jail,” he said."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abortion and Assisted Suicide have been around since ancient times and the ethics of such procedures have always been called into question. The dominant moral and ethical position from history has generally been opposed to abortion and assisted suicide as indicated, for example, in the earliest form of the Hippocratic Oath. Of course, there have always been physicians willing to carry out these procedures anyway.

I think that it is curious to claim moral or ethical grounds to bar people from medical school who conscientiously object to abortion or assisted suicide on moral or ethical grounds!

Why do you find this curious?

Modern medicine is patient-focused. The beliefs and values that should be informing a patient's care are the patient's, not the physician's.

I think people have and will request things of doctors that are immoral or unethical but which a doctor has within his knowledge and power to provide or to do. It seems to me that "First do no harm" is superior to "the needs of the patient come first" when it comes to guiding physicians towards the proper application of their abilities in a moral or ethical sense.

Medically assisted dying has been legal in Canada since 2005. Today, after considerable deliberation in the medical community, it's a standard "tool" in the "toolbox" for end-of-life care, and it's something that patients should expect to be able to choose at the appropriate time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, yes because they weren't trained surgeons. So of course they left surgery to the surgeons.

No, it's that this "do no harm" is nonsense and basically impossible with many surgeries. Incisions are made, recovery hurts, a lesser harm was done in order to alleviate a greater harm.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As someone to the left, I like the idea that all services are secure in being provided. Maybe the conservatives, if they are talented, might go about forming conservative hospitals. They could be side by side with the liberal ones that provide anything the patient asks for. That way there's no conflict. Seems like a thread that might fit better under the 'general discussion' heading.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As someone to the left, I like the idea that all services are secure in being provided. Maybe the conservatives, if they are talented, might go about forming conservative hospitals. They could be side by side with the liberal ones that provide anything the patient asks for. That way there's no conflict. Seems like a thread that might fit better under the 'general discussion' heading.

So you'd duplicate the entire healthcare system just to deal with the problem of doctors practicing medicine dishonourably? Seems like overkill.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

So you'd duplicate the entire healthcare system just to deal with the problem of doctors practicing medicine dishonourably? Seems like overkill.

Apparently there's no other good choice, those conservative doctors might be really good at what they limit themselves in doing. So in the same way as there are different denominations of christianity, there might be different denominations of healthcare, since apparently it's becoming like a belief system

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently there's no other good choice, those conservative doctors might be really good at what they limit themselves in doing. So in the same way as there are different denominations of christianity, there might be different denominations of healthcare, since apparently it's becoming like a belief system

A healthcare system that provides the full standard of care of modern medicine meets the needs of all patients. There's no reason to have a parallel system just to cater to the desires of practitioners who want to impose their views and values on their patients.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently there's no other good choice, those conservative doctors might be really good at what they limit themselves in doing.

Not quite sure what you're driving at with this, but if I have a general sense, then this story will be relevant:

Years ago, I encountered a fertility specialist who would not do IVF... not because she personally objected to IVF, but because if she did IVF, she would lose her privileges at the Catholic hospital she was affiliated with.

In her case, "protection of conscience" actually limited her ability to practice according to her conscience.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There's no reason to have a parallel system just to cater to the desires of practitioners who want to impose their views and values on their patients.

Already happens doesn't it. Different non-western medicine, chiropractors, etc. much is probably sought that isn't going to be in there

Years ago, I encountered a fertility specialist who would not do IVF... not because she personally objected to IVF, but because if she did IVF, she would lose her privileges at the Catholic hospital she was affiliated with.

Sure, so why not have like a scientific atheistic hospital. Why do I have to go to st. so and sos hospital

 

[Harel13]

In fact the anti-abortion position is a relatively recent one of churches

Please read the religion stated in my profile. I DO NOT care what the church's position was in the past.

 

[Harel13]

Murder has been legal since humans exist. Just call it war, punishment or protection.

At least you're aware that abortion is murder. Good for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please read the religion stated in my profile. I DO NOT care what the church's position was in the past.

It shows that your beliefs really are not scriptural. As I said you could argue against abortion on a secular basis much more effectively. Unfortunately your posts where you insist that it is 'murder' indicate that you may not be able to reason rationally about this topic.

I am sure that you can reason rationally if you try.

 

[Harel13]

It shows that your beliefs really are not scriptural. As I said you could argue against abortion on a secular basis much more effectively. Unfortunately your posts where you insist that it is 'murder' indicate that you may not be able to reason rationally about this topic.

I am sure that you can reason rationally if you try.

Right, like the guy who thinks murdering babies is okay is going to teach me about rational thinking. As long as you sleep okay at night, eh?

 

[Heyo]

At least you're aware that abortion is murder. Good for you.

I don't think that abortion is murder. It is, at worst, questionable killing.
What are your positions on war, capital punishment and unpunished killing by police? And how much time do you dedicate to advocate for the right to live of actual persons vs. potential persons?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right, like the guy who thinks murdering babies is okay is going to teach me about rational thinking. As long as you sleep okay at night, eh?

What makes it murder?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, like the guy who thinks murdering babies is okay is going to teach me about rational thinking. As long as you sleep okay at night, eh?

No, if anything the Bible advocates that killing actual babies is okay. When you use incorrect terminology you lose the argument. Once again you are thinking emotionally and not rationally. That rarely works out well in debates.

 

[74x12]

No, they often can't.

(Speaking as if I was a physician who refused to do either of these things.) That's not my problem. No one is going to force me to do it. That's my liberty to choose. Let's remember that abortionists always talk about a "woman's right to choose". Well what about a doctor's right to choose?

I don't think people have to like my decisions to agree with my right to make them. So if a physician chooses not to assist in a suicide that's their choice also the same with an abortion of course.

Would you force a physician to do some cosmetic surgery if they didn't want to? Where does all this "force" end? When do we stop forcing physicians to do things?

 

[Subduction Zone]

(Speaking as if I was a physician who refused to do either of these things.) That's not my problem. No one is going to force me to do it. That's my liberty to choose. Let's remember that abortionists always talk about a "woman's right to choose". Well what about a doctor's right to choose?

I don't think people have to like my decisions to agree with my right to make them. So if a physician chooses not to assist in a suicide that's their choice also the same with an abortion of course.

Would you force a physician to do some cosmetic surgery if they didn't want to? Where does all this "force" end? When do we stop forcing physicians to do things?

The idea of this bill is to weed out such people ahead of time. I am not sure if I support it or not. The problem is that if one stated that one had no problem with those procedures and then refused to do them that would definitely be grounds for termination.

Would you lie ahead of time about your willingness to do those procedures? Probably not. But then you would not become a doctor in the first place.

And once again, even though I am prochoice I do not know if I would go so far. Of course if a pharmacy refused to fulfill a prescription for someone that wanted a "morning after pill" I would probably agree that that a good case could be made for that pharmacist to lose his license. He agreed ahead of time to service the community and that would be him going back on his word.