Hippocratic Oath gets the religious shaft

[AlexMax]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conscience2-2008dec02,0,7013690.story


Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

It also seeks to cover more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to "an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments," the draft rule said.

The "conscience" rule could set the stage for an abortion controversy in the early months of Barack Obama's administration.

During the campaign, President-elect Obama sought to find a middle ground on the issue. He said there is a "moral dimension to abortion" that cannot be ignored, but he also promised to protect the rights of women who seek abortion.

While the rule could eventually be overturned by the new administration, the process might open a wound that could take months of wrangling to close again.

Health and Human Services Department officials said the rule would apply to "any entity" that receives federal funds. It estimated 584,000 entities could be covered, including 4,800 hospitals, 234,000 doctor's offices and 58,000 pharmacies.

Proponents, including the Christian Medical Assn. and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens, president of CMA.

"The real battle line is the morning-after pill," he said. "This prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity. Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a moral objection to."

Critics of the rule say it will sacrifice patients' health to the religious beliefs of providers.

The American Medical Assn. and the American Hospital Assn. in October urged HHS to drop the regulation. The Planned Parenthood Foundation and other backers of abortion rights condemned the rule as a last-gasp effort by the Bush administration to please social conservatives.

"It's unconscionable that the Bush administration, while promising a smooth transition, would take a final opportunity to politicize women's health," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

Despite the controversy, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said he intends to issue the rule as a final regulation before the Obama administration takes office, to protect the moral conscience of persons in the healthcare industry. Abortion-rights advocates are just as insistent that the rights of a patient come first.

If the regulation is issued before Dec. 20, it will be final when the new administration takes office, HHS officials say. Overturning it would require publishing a proposed new rule for public comment and then waiting months to accept comments before drafting a final rule.

Abortion-rights advocates think it might be easier to get Congress to reject the rule. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), before being nominated Monday for secretary of State, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have said they would move to reverse it.

The HHS proposal has set off a sharp debate about medical ethics and the duties of healthcare workers.

Last year, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said a "patient's well-being must be paramount" when a conflict arises over a medical professional's beliefs.

In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” ACOG cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.

"Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients [or] negatively affect a patient's health," ACOG's Committee on Ethics said. It also said physicians have a "duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request."

Leavitt said ACOG threatened to brand as "unprofessional" those who do not share its attitudes toward abortion. In August, he criticized "the development of an environment in the healthcare field that is intolerant of individual conscience, certain religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions and moral convictions."

In its announcement, HHS said the proposed rule was needed because of an attitude "that healthcare professionals should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination."

In a media briefing, Leavitt said the rule was focused on abortion, not contraception. But others said its broad language goes beyond abortion.

Since the 1970s, Congress has said no person may be compelled to perform or assist in performing an abortion or sterilization. One law says no person may be required to assist in a "health service program or research activity" that is "contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions." The HHS rule says that law should be enforced "broadly" to cover any "activity related in any way to providing medicine, healthcare or any other service related to health or welfare."

Judith Waxman, a lawyer for the National Women's Law Center, said Leavitt's office has extended the law far beyond what was understood. "This goes way beyond abortion," she said. It could reach disputes over contraception, sperm donations and end-of-life care.

"This kind of rule could wreak havoc in a hospital if any employee can declare they are not willing to do certain parts of their job," she said.

I"m speechless. There's just no words for the amount of contempt I feel for the outgoing administration at this point. We're a first world country with the best medical care in the world, why in the world would you hamstring it like that?

[Beldaran]

This is going to sound weird coming from an atheist, but I'm pro life and I support this bill. To many, the practice of abortion is a holocaust. They should be free to pursue productive careers in medicine without having to participate in something they view as inherently evil and sick.

Speaking of the Hippocratic Oath, why doesn't "Do No Harm" include babies?

[Archibaldo]

I can see this causing problems further down the road. Especially in small rural towns that only have one doctor. If that doctor happens to be pro-life to the point that he or she refuses to prescribe birth control pills, there could be a spike in teen pregnancies and with the option of refusal of abortion theres going to be a large increase in kids being brought up in broken families. And kids who grow up in broken families tend more to become delinquents. Thus, because of this, there is potential for the crime rate to rise.

[Anthus]

This is bullshit. How fair is it that the fairy-tale ethics and morals of some doctors get to dictate the rest of someone's life? Well, I guess it is easy for these conservatives to feel good about something used to please people since they aren't the ones who have to deal with the unwanted pregnancy. It is always easy to play the good guy at someone else's expense. Go retarded Palin babies :thumbsup:

[Yoshiman]

In my own opinion, if you have morals that prevent you from doing your job, then don't go into that field.

And I can also see this backfire horribly. Suppose there's this guy named Bill who lives in a small rural town. Bill needs his gallbladder taken out as soon as possible, or else it'll rupture and he'll die. So Bill goes to the only hospital in the area. The doctor happens to be Catholic. Bill is gay. If this "Right of Conscience" rule were to pass, the doctor has the right to refuse an operation on Bill because the doctor believes that homosexuality is wrong. Bill dies.

Essentially, this rule would make discrimination of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ect., okay.

[The_Amaster]

Ya know, I was going to say "Yoshiman, thats not how it works, it's only if the practice itself is objectionable",
but then I looked back over the article and thought: if the doctor says "well, saving his life will help spread homosexuality, somthing I'm against", the doctor may very well be able to argue the case. He'll lose, terribly, but he can still argue it. And Bill is still dead.

[Anthus]

Not only can you refuse abortions, but contraceptives too? Sounds like a vicious little cycle to me.

[Russ]

This is what I don't get. The same people who want to give women the right to choose want to take away a doctor's right to choose. Why shouldn't the doctor be able to refuse that information?


And I can also see this backfire horribly. Suppose there's this guy named Bill who lives in a small rural town. Bill needs his gallbladder taken out as soon as possible, or else it'll rupture and he'll die. So Bill goes to the only hospital in the area. The doctor happens to be Catholic. Bill is gay. If this "Right of Conscience" rule were to pass, the doctor has the right to refuse an operation on Bill because the doctor believes that homosexuality is wrong. Bill dies.

I see your point here. This bill needs to be very specific about what it deals with and what it doesn't. Although I'd like to point out that Catholics believe that life is valuable no matter what, and even want to do away with the detah sentence, so your scenario falls apart. Just wanted to point that out.:)

[phattonez]

You know what would be great? Not telling doctors what to do at all.

[Beldaran]

Not telling doctors what to do at all.

So you don't mind if your doctor decides to cut your ears off and sow them to your balls? Because hey, can't tell the Doctors what to do!

Regulations are important in the medical field. Forcing a christian nurse to help inform someone about how to kill their child is not a good regulation, however.

[Trevelyan_06]

This is what I don't get. The same people who want to give women the right to choose want to take away a doctor's right to choose. Why shouldn't the doctor be able to refuse that information?


Doctors are legally and morally bound to provide ALL information to a patient in order to help that patient reach a decision on their health. As a doctor they are entrusted to help people. They can't go about denying someone information just because they don't agree with it. It is NOT their body. They are sought out to heal the body, and help people make healthy choices based on their recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS BASED SOLELY ON MEDICAL GROUNDS NOT RELIGIOUS ONES.

They don't have to agree with a treatment, but they can't not tell someone about it. A doctor that withholds vital information about chemotherapy from a cancer patient because he "morally objected" to it would be tossed out on his ear and most likely face various lawsuits.

You know what, if you are doctor that doesn't like abortions, nothing says YOU have to be the one doing it. You do, however, HAVE to provide information on where a person can go to get one. To not provide this information goes against everything doctors have fought to bring about.

[Icey]

I personally am not a fan of abortion, in fact I suppose I am pro-life to the extent that I oppose it (even though I usually vote Democratic and am atheist). However, I really don't see the point in refusing to give contraceptives. I think that's much more problematic than refusing to perform an abortion.

[rock_nog]

Many people consider contraceptives to be equivalent to abortions. That, and there's the whole "sex without the intent of procreation, even for a married couple, is a sin."

Frankly, I think this is idiotic. It serves no legitimate purpose; doctors generally aren't asked to perform procedures they have moral objections to anyway. You don't want to perform abortions? That's easy, just don't work at an abortion clinic. How flippin' hard is that? It's just a red herring whose sole purpose is to stir up controversy, and as such, this whole business pisses me off.

[phattonez]

So you don't mind if your doctor decides to cut your ears off and sow them to your balls? Because hey, can't tell the Doctors what to do!
Seriously? You know what I mean. As long as they're not harming the patient, what's the problem?

[rock_nog]

Of course, if I took this more seriously, which I don't, I would raise the objection that hospitals are private institutions and should be allowed to deal with their staff in the manner they see fit. If you need a person to perform certain duties, and the person you hired refuses to perform those duties, why should you be forced to hire a second person, rather than simply replace the first one?

Then, too, this goes beyond abortions and birth control. People forget that some religions object to blood transfusions, and what about transplants - the organs must be removed while the donor is on life support.

But once again, the reality of it is, I fail to see how this is even an issue, because someone with moral objections to a certain procedure almost certainly wouldn't be in any position where they may be required to perform the procedure anyway.

[Saffith]

This goes further than allowing doctors to act in accordance with their beliefs. This would allow doctors to impose their beliefs on their patients. It's one thing for doctors to refuse to perform procedures they consider unconscionable, but not letting patients to make informed decisions regarding their health is entirely another.

[Revfan9]

Why is this even a question?

When you become a doctor, you go into it full knowing that your entire career will be full of hard decisions and conflicts. As previously said, it's not like it's anywhere close to hard to just get into a field where you won't have to deal with this sort of thing. Don't want to perform abortions? Don't work at an abortion clinic.

The entire thing is just another way for one political party to undermine the other. It's times like this that make me almost embarassed to admit that I'm a conservative.

[Breaker]

This would allow doctors to impose their beliefs on their patients. It's one thing for doctors to refuse to perform procedures they consider unconscionable, but not letting patients to make informed decisions regarding their health is entirely another.


this already happens

[Saffith]

Well, yeah, but it's not something that should be endorsed.

[Prrkitty]

It should not be a right of the doctor/pharmacist/etc... to refuse anyone who's been raped... any form of help to make sure she doesn't get pregnant from said rape.

I, too, am appalled over this issue.

[Aegix Drakan]

This already happens

Right, but now they're protected by the law.


It should not be a right of the doctor/pharmacist/etc... to refuse anyone who's been raped... any form of help to make sure she doesn't get pregnant from said rape.

QFFT.


Look, I oppose abortions. I really do. You should not just decide "oh hey, I think I'd rather not have this kid now, 4-6 months AFTER I get pregnant". But on the other hand, if something happens that makes it incredibly harmful to everyone if you keep the kid, then fine. And rape? In that case, there is no debate in my mind. If you want to keepte kid, fine. But if you don't, I don't see how you should be held morally responsible. It wasn't your choice to get pregnant, so you should have the choice to avoid the outcome.

Now, the REAL issue I have here is the contraceptives. You can't just deny that to people. I'm against meaningless sex (as in you do it just because you feel bored), but as long as it's part of a very close relationship/marriage, then I don't see the problem! In fact, we need to MASS PRODUCE this stuff now, and stop the earth's population from increasing further and eventually causing a final collapse!

You should not tell doctors that they dont' NEED to heal people if it goeas agaisnt their beliefs. If this goes farther, then yo umight have a situation like this:

Bobby is *insert religion here*, and has been shot in a freak accident.
Jonny is *insert other religion here* and thinks that all other religions are evil. Thus, he refuses to save Bobby, becasue he feels he would be helping evil.


Ugh...Personal opinions should NOT be mixed into life saving jobs. It's like giving the fireman a choice between saving the muslim mother of 3, or letting her die, because he hates muslims.

[Beldaran]

I'm against meaningless sex (as in you do it just because you feel bored)


What? Meaningless sex is awesome! Meaningless sex has been a hobby of mine since the year 2000.

[rock_nog]

I resent the implication that any sex is meaningless. Surely the pleasure derived from it is meaning enough.

[Aegix Drakan]

...What I meant is I'm against people deciding to have random sex with anyone in particular just for kicks. It's a serious thing, in my mind.

[Icey]

...What I meant is I'm against people deciding to have random sex with anyone in particular just for kicks. It's a serious thing, in my mind.

I'm against people thinking sex must always be a serious thing, it ruins otherwise fun flings.

Sex in a relationship sucks because you are chained in a relationship. Sex outside = perfect. Now I wouldn't do it with just any random person, so I agree with you there, but I also don't want a romantic relationship. Friends who are chill and don't have AIDS/herpes/etc are ideal.

Back to the actual topic...

I guess you could say I know the "reasoning" that some religious don't believe in using contraceptives, but I really don't see that as equivalent to abortion. It's like saying a conscious choice not to a conceive a child today = abortion. So everyday you don't decide to get pregnant, you are preventing the formation of a life and thus practicing abortion! IMHO religious should be advocating the use of contraceptives, since it actually prevents the emergence of a fetus and thus abortion.

[Modus Ponens]

Speaking of the Hippocratic Oath, why doesn't "Do No Harm" include babies?


... Forcing a christian nurse to help inform someone about how to kill their child is not a good regulation, however.

Come on, Bel. These aren't babies or children we're talking about here, these are fetuses. Now, I recognize the fact that this is most certainly a prime example of a slipperly slope, and that thirty seconds before labor, a fetus is basically a baby, and this is even the case further back as well, but what about really early-term abortion? Like, when the sex of the "child" isn't even distinguishable yet? This is no more a person than a human kidney is. Yes, if you wait long enough, it will turn into a human, but at the earlier stages it is really just tissue growing inside the uterus.

[AlexMax]

...What I meant is I'm against people deciding to have random sex with anyone in particular just for kicks. It's a serious thing, in my mind.

So you have no problems with legislating your own twisted morality on those with different morals than you.

[rock_nog]

Icey, if the religious groups opposed to contraceptives followed that logic, we wouldn't have "abstinence only" education. You've got two major problems - the stigma about accepting sex, and the rampant misinformation out there regarding contraceptives.

What I've never understood is their complete lack of concern about the ethical implications of lying to further their cause. Of course, being an atheist, I'm prone to make a quip about how when you're selling fairy stories as fact, lying probably comes naturally. But no, I'll restrain myself and assume that they further their beliefs out of good intentions.

But the point is - they lie about the effectiveness of condoms, about the risks of STDs... They lie about how birth control pills work - claiming that birth control pills cause women to spontaneously abort, when in fact they simply prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place. I just simply don't understand it. Why (assuming they are generally well-intentioned) do religious groups spread deliberate misinformation, and how can they possibly justify lying for God?

[Archibaldo]

Don't have sex, or else you will get pregnant and you will die.

[Beldaran]

These aren't babies or children we're talking about here, these are fetuses.

I don't believe that a vagina is so magical that being on one side makes you a fetus and being on the other makes you a person. [shrug]


but what about really early-term abortion? Like, when the sex of the "child" isn't even distinguishable yet? This is no more a person than a human kidney is.

Your body being at a certain level of development does not determine your humanity.

I could make the argument that a 1 year old child cannot survive on its own, is not fully developed, and doesn't even have a moral sense of its own existence. We find it gross to kill 1 year old children. I find it gross to kill 1 month old children.


This is no more a person than a human kidney is.

This is just untrue. A kidney is a machine that filters urine. A fetus is a developing human being at a certain point in its genetic replication process which will eventually go on to become an adult. This definition fits a 1 year old child too.

People are welcome to make the argument that they don't have a problem killing undeveloped human beings. Heck, many people don't have a problem killing developed human beings. However, to assuage one's conscience with the idea that a very young person is not a person is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion.

[Modus Ponens]

I think "personhood" is a property that a human doesn't gain until a certain level of development. What that level is exactly is unclear, but I do believe that there is a period of early pregnancy when an embryo is not yet a person. Like I said in my original post, I don't believe that simply being inside a uterus makes you fair game for abortion; however, very early on, a fetus is no more sophisticated an organism than a fly. Now, if one wants to make the argument that one should never kill any life, fetus or fly, well, okay. That's a difficult standard to live by, but not impossible, and it's certainly laudable. However, I think it's within reason not to hold some kind of mystical reverence for "life", just because it's "alive".

Argh. I can't believe I'm arguing about abortion. I remember clearly promising myself that I would never do it.

[Beldaran]

Well, I think its an interesting ethical issue. I don't mind arguing about it because it doesn't make me emotional, as its not a cosmic spiritual matter.

[Aegix Drakan]

So you have no problems with legislating your own twisted morality on those with different morals than you.

...Hey. I'm not asking it to be made a law or anyhting. I also don't go around telling people it's evil either. It's just part of my own moral complex, nothing more. If I was trying to convince people of it, then perhaps your point would be justified. But that was not my intent. I just wanted to state my opinion on the matter. I am allowed to have my own opinion, right?


@ everyone else who replied to me: *shrugs and spreads his arms wide* What can I say? I'm still a virgin, ya know (hell, I still can't find a girl I like that's not taken). Maybe my opinion will change after I experience it, but until then, I'm just talking out of my ignorance (like a lot of people on the internet).


*AHEM!* Now back to the actualy topic here....

Somehting that's always bugged me aobut the "contraceptives are a sin" argument is this: If using birth control is a sin...then every time you have a wet dream, it's genocide. By that logic, we should spend our entire lives plugged into a member of the opposite sex.

.......That seems incredibly innefficient.

[rock_nog]

It's so much easier to define personhood if you believe in the concept of a soul. Myself, I have always seen personhood as an extension of the mind. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong about that, but it seems to me that one can only experience anything as a product of the mind. *shrug*

EDIT: Oh, and Aegix, thanks for reminding me of a little song that I think is appropriate here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[The_Amaster]

...without even clicking the link, I know, I know that that's Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song...

EDIT:Well, whatdya know, I was right.

Eh, I'm personally not going to say a lot on this issue, as I don't feel I have enough information to form a valid opinion. Anything I feel uninformed on, I take an agnostic stance towards.

[AlexMax]

Don't have sex, or else you will get pregnant and you will die.

Not quite:

"You're NOT supposed to enjoy having sex. No condoms, no abortions, no sex before marriage, no nothing. Oh, and do us a favor, when you actually have the kid, stay off welfare, because once he's actually born we don't actually give a shit about him anymore."

At the very least this threads proves that only a small minority of AGN is actually downright evil. Of the entire thread, only russadwan and phattonez have exposed themselves to be totally morally reprehensible.


Eh, I'm personally not going to say a lot on this issue, as I don't feel I have enough information to form a valid opinion. Anything I feel uninformed on, I take an agnostic stance towards.

Do all of us a favor. Next time you want to post in one of my threads essentially saying nothing but 'I have nothing to say on the subject but LOL YOUTUBE', just.....don't.

[Revfan9]

For me, the issue of abortion is "Whose rights are more important? The mother's, or the unborn child's?"

You can disagree with me all you want on this, but a young girl shouldn't have her life destroyed over a stupid mistake. The option should be there.

[Archibaldo]

Alex makes an interesting point how theres so much fuss over abortions, but once the kid is actually born, people don't care about him. There is so little being done about making sure the kid grows up in a good home. Personally I think abortions are okay. See my previous post about how kids brought into a world not fit for a child has a relation with kids turning into criminals. Essentially, the choice of abortion is prevent a crime spike. Get rid of that and there will be a sky rocketing number of kids being born in broken homes and then growing up to be criminals.

Brings up the question, would you kill one man if it meant saving the lives of two? On one hand it is still murder, but on the other some one is going to die no matter what. Might as well be only one person and that person be a criminal.

Also, I don't believe a human is a human until they've had their first breath. But I still think you shouldn't wait until the last minute to get the abortion. Procrastination is not an option in this scenario.

[Trevelyan_06]

I could make the argument that a 1 year old child cannot survive on its own, is not fully developed, and doesn't even have a moral sense of its own existence. We find it gross to kill 1 year old children. I find it gross to kill 1 month old children.


A one year old child can survive outside the womb, and 1 month old baby cannot. There are no machines that would allow it to. Yes, a one year old requires care, feeding, etc, but it has the ability to communicate, breath, eliminate wastes, and a functioning immune system. A month old baby has none of these.

[Beldaran]

A one year old child can survive outside the womb,

Explain the magical properties of the womb that cause one to not be a human being if one is located inside of it.

1 year old children die if they are not fed and cared for.

1 month old fetuses die if they are not fed and cared for.

What is the moral difference between killing a helpless person that is on the outside of a vagina, and killing a helpless person that is on the inside of a vagina?

A vagina is not a magic portal of moral virtue. It is just a vagina. For the first 9 months of their lives, human beings live on the inside of vaginas. For the rest of their lives they live on the outside. Killing them on either side is wrong, in my opinion.

[rock_nog]

What makes a one-month-old embryo a person? It's a largely undifferentiated mass of tissue that happens to have a unique genetic makeup. It has no brain; it cannot think, and it cannot feel. It may be alive in the strictest sense, but it does not yet represent an individual.

[The_Amaster]

Do all of us a favor. Next time you want to post in one of my threads essentially saying nothing but 'I have nothing to say on the subject but LOL YOUTUBE', just.....don't.
I didn't say "I have nothing to say", I said "I have very little to say", and with good reason.
Are any of us a woman whose had an abortion?
Are any of us doctors who have recommended abortions even though we didn't like it?
My guess is no.
None of us have any firsthand experience or knowledge.
What right do we have to dictate on something we know nothing about?
Would you ask an Alaskan for the best cactus farming techniques?

[Beldaran]

What makes a one-month-old embryo a person?

It's just a very young person. Your personal disapproval of its mental ability and level of physical development does not make it a non-person. Shall we kill anyone you don't think is well developed enough?

[rock_nog]

It's just a very young person. Your personal disapproval of its mental ability and level of physical development does not make it a non-person. Shall we kill anyone you don't think is well developed enough?
But how can you say something without a brain at all is a person?

[Beldaran]

But how can you say something without a brain at all is a person?

A fetus is not "without a brain". It's brain hasn't developed yet, but it exists as a series of encoded instructions; source code if you will.

When a 1 year old baby dies suddenly, are we morning the death of a drooling poop machine that isn't intelligent enough to know anything about the world? No, we grieve the individual it was on its way to becoming. We grieve the experiences it will never have. We grieve the death of a developing human.

A twenty-minute old fetus is a human being in the earliest stages of its development. All of its body parts, all of its life and potential, exist as coded instructions for future events, just like with a 12 month old infant.

By condoning abortion, you are making the argument that children who have not reached a level of physical development that you have personally deemed acceptable, may be arbitrarily killed if they become any sort of inconvenience.

How is it that you are the god who gets decide how developed a person must be before they are entitled to their lives?

[Anthus]

Don't have sex, or else you will get pregnant and you will die.

This is a bit off topic, but this reminds me of something my 10th grade English teacher said: "Touching either leads to fighting, or babies". Dunno why o-o'

[rock_nog]

Look, I'm just saying, without a brain, there is no individual to lament the loss of life. The consciousness has not yet come into being - isn't it the consciousness whose loss we mourn?

[Beldaran]

The consciousness has not yet come into being - isn't it the consciousness whose loss we mourn?

How much direct knowledge do you have about the consciousness level of a 1 month old infant? (a born infant, outside the womb). Is a 1 month old baby conscious? Do you have any memory of being 1 month old? If a 1 month old baby dies, do we feel sad because an interesting person we knew well died? No.

We feel sad because a developing human died. We have no relationship with 1 month old infant. It's brain and mind haven't developed enough to have conversations, to interact with us in a meaningful way.

By your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to kill newborn babies because they haven't developed the ability to demonstrate rational consciousness.

Try asking a newborn if it wants to live. See how many of them say "Yes please, I'd like to live."

We don't kill newborns because we cherish human life. We do kill newly conceived people because we find them inconvenient sometimes.

[Trevelyan_06]

Explain the magical properties of the womb that cause one to not be a human being if one is located inside of it.

1 year old children die if they are not fed and cared for.

1 month old fetuses die if they are not fed and cared for.


The magical property of the womb is that it is in fact a life support system for the fetus. The fetus CAN NOT survive outside the womb up until around 6 or 7 months I believe. Even then, when born prematurely the baby needs massive amounts of life support and may never fully develop. This was the point I was trying to make earlier.

I'm interested in knowing if you are against ALL abortion or just what you consider "capricious" abortion.

[Beldaran]

I'm interested in knowing if you are against ALL abortion or just what you consider "capricious" abortion.

I think women should have the right to an abortion if they are raped, with the caveat that the rapist be charged with murder and get life in prison or the death penalty.

They should also be able to choose abortion if the pregnancy threatens their life or long term health.

All other cases, they need to learn some personal responsibility and live with the consequences of their actions. Killing humans is not a safety valve for stupid behavior.

[Shazza Dani]

If abortions were only legal for people that were raped, wouldn't everyone just lie?

[gdorf]

With Obama as president women will continue to have the right to an Abortion. There are many doctors who will gladly give them the necessary information and perform the procedure.

I think its foolish and unnecessary to force Doctors and Nurses into something they consider immoral. Doctors have rights too-- including the right to decide for themselves whether they'd like to destroy human fetuses. :shrug:

[rock_nog]

Beldaran, I still feel that you are not adequately justifying your definition for personhood any more than simply saying "Because I said so." You are, obviously, entitled to your views, but I feel it's philosophically disingenuous to claim that your definition is the only possible definition and that anyone whose opinion is different from yours is inherently wrong.

We can obviously argue this until the end of time, but my issue is with your apparent claim that anyone who believes differently than you do is not only wrong under your moral system, but wrong under any moral system.

It's like - some people argue that the destruction of a fertilized egg is wrong because they believe in the concept of the soul. Obviously, because I don't believe in souls, under my philosophical views, this argument would be wrong. However, at the same time, I still acknowledge that for someone who believed in souls, this argument would be correct.

[gdorf]

rock nog -

Read Beldaran's posts again. There is a lot more substance than "Because I said so".

I think your posts would be a lot less flaky if you directly responded to previous posts instead of overgeneralizing. That would at least make it seem like you were thinking about the issue.

[rock_nog]

rock nog -

Read Beldaran's posts again. There is a lot more substance than "Because I said so".

I think your posts would be a lot less flaky if you directly responded to previous posts instead of overgeneralizing. That would at least make it seem like you were thinking about the issue.
No, I understand his views. I simply disagree with the assumptions upon which those rules are based, and I disagree with his apparent attitude that those assumptions must be held by everyone.

Now, if you want to get back to the issue, I've got to ask - am I the only one here bothered by the complete lack of necessity of this rule? Forget your stance on abortion or whatever for a moment. Doctors AREN'T forced to perform procedures they don't feel comfortable with. So what purpose does this rule have, other than to stir up controversy? What next? A rule saying that doctors don't have to perform procedures on which they haven't been properly trained?

[AlexMax]

Remind me to never 'ever' start a thread on this sort of subject outside of General Bitching again. About half of you idiots need a good verbal ripping into, but the last time I stated the obvious I got banned.

fake edit: Looking over this post I'll probably at the very least get warned for it, which means a pretty long vacation at this point. Oh well.


With Obama as president women will continue to have the right to an Abortion. There are many doctors who will gladly give them the necessary information and perform the procedure.

I'm willing to bet that you've never had something seriously wrong with you that required going to a couple different doctors to finally get a straight answer. It's bad enough when all you have to chalk up to it is incompetence, now you're telling me that people now have to guess if their doctor is telling them the truth too? Fuck you.

You also obviously don't pay for your own medical care or health insurance or else you wouldn't have allowed yourself to type something so stupid either, because when you start traveling around to different doctors enough eventually it starts becoming very expensive.

And this doesn't even begin to cover people who work hard and live in bum-fuck nowhere and have to take time off of work and travel a couple of hours to get to their nearest doctor. But hey, it's okay if their doctor just says no, right, because their patient can totally afford to keep visiting doctors that are further and further away until they find out the truth, right? Right?


I think its foolish and unnecessary to force Doctors and Nurses into something they consider immoral. Doctors have rights too-- including the right to decide for themselves whether they'd like to destroy human fetuses. :shrug:

There should never be any room for 'moral judgments' when it comes to medical care; you come to your doctor with a problem and you expect 100% factual information out of him or her. Period. End of discussion.

You just wait until you or someone you love has something wrong with them that's hard to figure out. You'll expect 100% factual information out of them. You'll trust them. The absolute last thing you'll want to do is ask yourself "Hrm, now is he /she lying because of some retarded moral objection to one thing or another?"

You think it'll never come back to bite you in the ass, and then it turns out that your doctor is a member of PETA and won't prescribe you anything that was tested on animals by the big pharmaceuticals or something equally stupid.

THINK!

EDIT: Hahaha (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20244181,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines). What if the doctor had said "I have a moral objection to bringing another one of you kids into the world.

[Beldaran]

you come to your doctor with a problem and you expect 100% factual information out of him or her. Period. End of discussion.

If a person goes to the doctor, and they think they might be pregnant, and they've never heard of abortion, then your argument would be valid. Unfortunately for you, everyone who has sex knows what an abortion is and they are welcome to find a doctor who is willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath in order to give them one.

[rock_nog]

But why do we need a special rule for this? Why does the government need to intervene? It seems like an idiotic waste of time to me. Do you seriously believe doctors are currently being forced to perform abortions against their will? The only possible consequence I can see from this is setting the stage for a bunch of lawsuits made by lazy hospital staff who are suddenly going to claim that mopping up the vomit in the hallway violates their moral code.

[Archibaldo]

Alex makes a very valid point. Abortion aside, what if some kid comes into the emergency room because he's been shot in a gang shooting or something? The kid happens to be black. The doctor happens to hate black people. With this law he's legally allowed to refuse to save the kid's life because he morally objects saving black people. So now the black kid doesn't deserve to live? I think he deserves to live a hell of a lot more than an undeveloped fetus.


Also, with out abortions, we wind up with people like Pryme8. Think about it.

[Trevelyan_06]

If a person goes to the doctor, and they think they might be pregnant, and they've never heard of abortion, then your argument would be valid. Unfortunately for you, everyone who has sex knows what an abortion is and they are welcome to find a doctor who is willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath in order to give them one.

Just because you know about abortion does not mean that you know how to go about getting an abortion. Nor does it mean that you are familiar with all that goes along with said procedure.

Also, abortions violating the Hippocratic Oath is just your opinion, not the opinion of all. Really if you think about it one can argue that cosmetic surgery is against the Hippocratic Oath. They are proscribing something that has no medical necessity.

[gdorf]

And this doesn't even begin to cover people who work hard and live in bum-fuck nowhere and have to take time off of work and travel a couple of hours to get to their nearest doctor. But hey, it's okay if their doctor just says no, right, because their patient can totally afford to keep visiting doctors that are further and further away until they find out the truth, right? Right?

I have an idea. If you can't afford to visit a doctor then don't have unprotected sex.

You are trying to portray pregnancy as some kind of disease that afflicts people at random. I think women who want an abortion should take some responsibility and find a nice, willing doctor to perform the procedure. If you give me a phone and a phone book I can find you the number for an abortion clinic and a recommended doctor in minutes.

I think that imposing a minor inconvenience on women seeking an abortion is worth protecting the integrity of doctors who strongly believe abortion is wrong. It seems pretty reasonable to me.. :shrug:

[rock_nog]

So you think this needs to be enforced by the government, gdorf? Doctors aren't obligated by any law to do whatever their patients tell them to do. So why do we need this government rule?

[AlexMax]

I think that imposing a minor inconvenience on women seeking an abortion is worth protecting the integrity of doctors who strongly believe abortion is wrong. It seems pretty reasonable to me.. :shrug:

The condom never breaks. The pill is 100% effective. A woman is never raped. All human beings are knowledgeable about contraceptive procedures and their very real risks. A woman can always afford to be on maternity leave. This new rule will never ever ever be abused for cases that it was never intended to be aimed at.

Want me to tell you a few more fairy tales?

And Integrity? A doctor who refuses to disclose treatment options because of a moral objection has...well...something...but sure as hell not "integrity" in any medical practicing sense of the word. If you're talking about 'self integrity' as if that is any use to their patients at all, nobody held a gun to their head and told them to go practice medicine.

[gdorf]

The condom never breaks. The pill is 100% effective. A woman is never raped. All human beings are knowledgeable about contraceptive procedures and their very real risks. A woman can always afford to be on maternity leave. This new rule will never ever ever be abused for cases that it was never intended to be aimed at.

Want me to tell you a few more fairy tales?

So what? That doesn't change the fact that a willing and able doctor is a phone call away!

There is no point forcing the issue on doctors with conservative values when there are viable alternatives. Its a give and a take. Although you don't seem to place much value in dignity, I think its worth slightly inconveniencing a few women to respect the doctors who firmly believe abortion is murder.



This new rule will never ever ever be abused for cases that it was never intended to be aimed at.

I actually agree with you. I think the law needs specific language that protects doctors from having to take part in an abortion or provide specific information about an abortion. This should not be a catch all conscience blanket that can be reinterpreted on a whim.

[rock_nog]

Damnit gdorf, this is utterly ridiculous. Doctors already aren't forced to perform procedures against their will. What part of that are you not getting? But no, let's make a new law anyway, despite the fact that it serves no purpose aside from the potential for misuse.

[Aegix Drakan]

And Integrity? A doctor who refuses to disclose treatment options because of a moral objection has...well...something...but sure as hell not "integrity" in any medical practicing sense of the word.

Agreed. (wow, is that a first?)

As a doctor, you have one purpose. To help others. If a particular procedure makes you feel morally uncomfortable, you don't withold all information. You go get another doctor to take on their case, one who has no moral objection to it.

This law has so many potential abuses it's not funny. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

[AlexMax]

I actually agree with you. I think the law needs specific language that protects doctors from having to take part in an abortion or provide specific information about an abortion. This should not be a catch all conscience blanket that can be reinterpreted on a whim.

And if it's actually specific to abortions, it would be a clear target for dismissal based on Roe vs. Wade. I'm glad we could come to an understanding. :)

[Beldaran]

Roe V. Wade = Women have a right to an abortion.

Doctors should not have a duty to perform them.

[rock_nog]

Roe V. Wade = Women have a right to an abortion.

Doctors should not have a duty to perform them.
THEY DON'T! Christ, where do you people get these ideas!? Sorry, it's just that I've been trying over and over again to explain that doctors aren't forced to perform abortions, or any procedures really, against their will. I don't know how else to say it, but this idiotic ruling serves no purpose, as it's not establishing anything new. The only possible two purposes for its existence that I can see are misuse and as an attempt to stir up controversy.

[CaRmAgE]

THEY DON'T! Christ, where do you people get these ideas!? Sorry, it's just that I've been trying over and over again to explain that doctors aren't forced to perform abortions, or any procedures really, against their will. I don't know how else to say it, but this idiotic ruling serves no purpose, as it's not establishing anything new. The only possible two purposes for its existence that I can see are misuse and as an attempt to stir up controversy.

It seems to be doing a pretty good job of stirring up controversy in this thread.

rock_nog, I do agree with you here. This rule changes absolutely nothing. Like what was said before, if a doctor doesn't want to get involved with abortions, s/he should not work at an abortion clinic.

Also, think about this one: if a doctor was uncomfortable with performing an abortion, would he be able to work at 100% efficiency if he were forced?


Also, with out abortions, we wind up with people like Pryme8. Think about it.

Without abortions, we also wind up with people like Pamela Stenzel.

[Beldaran]

Given that abortion is legal, I guess we're stuck with people like her no matter what.

[Archibaldo]

Yeah, carmage has a point. One of the only places that one can get an abortion is at an abortion clinic. So, if a doctor is opposed to abortions, why would he work at an abortion clinic? Unless, because now he's protected by law, he can get a job there and never have to work... because he's opposed to abortions.



I get it now, its a big conspiracy for doctors who have yet to enter the job market. They can get a job at an abortion clinic, and because they are protected by law, they don't have to perform these operations and therefore, they don't have to work as much. It genius!



Man, typing drunk is hard, it took me like 5 minutes to type this post...

[Beldaran]

Well, look at the bright side. You saved yourself the time of having to think about what you said. =)