New Zealand doctors who oppose abortion on ethical grounds are going to court to challenge new Medical Council guidelines on how to deal with pregnant patients unhappy with their situation.
In particular this proposed new clause
Indeed such a situation is bound to arise in short order.
The question I have is why is baby murder so sacred to the "progressives"?
In particular this proposed new clause
While the council recognises that you are entitled to hold your own beliefs, it remains your responsibility to ensure that a pregnant woman who comes to you for medical care and expresses doubt about continuing with the pregnancy is provided with or is offered access to objective information or assistance to enable her to make informed decisions on all available options for her pregnancy, including termination."And given the nature of the liberal mind, if this is adopted it will only be a matter of time before a prominent pro-life doctor finds him or herself dragged before the council for violating it.
Indeed such a situation is bound to arise in short order.
The question I have is why is baby murder so sacred to the "progressives"?
The question I have, is why the big deal? No doctor will be forced to actually perform an abortion, simply to provide patients with all the options, as is good medical practice.
ReplyDeleteWould you be comfortable with a Jehovas Witness doctor not talking about blood transfusion as an option?
BTW, as a male, I am neither pro nor anti abortion as I will never have to have an abortion. Its not my choice to make.
The question I have is why is baby murder so sacred to the "progressives"?
I wish I could answer that question, but I never know what is meant by "progressives", and even less so when enclosed in scare quotes.
leftrightout, the abortion issue may still affect you some time in life. What if you get married and your wife gets pregnant accidentally? Are you going to leave the decision up to her alone as to whether your unborn son or daughter lives? I know that, as a man and the father of the child, that I would certainly have a say.
ReplyDeleteIMF, my fathering days are past, as is my partner's abilty to conceive, so abortion isn't for me to decide.
ReplyDeleteBut, I STILL don't get what the big isse is, and you haven't tried to address it.
Why should a doctor not discuss all the possible options? I didn't think that people became doctors to push their own barrow, rather they did it to provide a service, and thats ervice should include all the options, not just the ones the doctor prefers.
No one is being asked to perform an abortion against their conscience, they are simply being asked to provide information.
No one is being asked to perform an abortion against their conscience, they are simply being asked to provide information. The information they are going to be compelled to provide is on how to commit murder and this will put their patients immortal soul in danger.
ReplyDeleteThe information they cannot provide,or will be slammed if they do is just that - and that cannot good for their patients welfare which is of course a doctors greatest priority
andrei, I assumed you were posing this as an ethical dilemma, especially when you wrote "...oppose abortion on ethical grounds...". Now you seem to want to rame it as a religious one.
ReplyDeleteIs that because your objection is religious, as can be assumed from your taliking about "immortal soul", or is it because you cannot conceive of an ethical structure that does not come with a religion attached?
Abortion is no more murder than is an apendectomy or an amputation.
I am able to think of many ethichal reasons why a person may oppose abortion, but where is the religious one? I cannot recall seeing anything in the bible prohibiting abortion.
LeftRightOut,
ReplyDeleteKilling a human being is murder, if the person is innocent. Abortion kills a developing human being, therefore is is murder.
An amputation or appendectomy normally is done not with the intention of killing the human, therefore it is not the same as an abortion.
This is a big deal because doctors are being asked to give the option of killing to their patients, as if it were just another choice.
It's not even legal as a choice.
"Ah, Ms Wood. You seem to be pregnant. I know you are not mentally impaired, but can I discuss an illegal option? You can pretend to be mentally impaired, and then we can kill your child.
ReplyDeleteWhilst we are on that tricky subject, if your parents are too old, then we can put them down too. we are doing a two for one deal this week. Now both are separate beings, but I want to make it clear that one is senile and the other barely sentient so it's really all up to you."
"Rest assured, as a Doctor I practice the Hippocratic oath, which makes me a hypocrite when it comes to "do no harm", because terminating a life should surely not be counted in that oath, as far as you are concerned, and no-one is concerned about your baby or your senile parents."
ReplyDelete..Reminds me of a story about a judge. Sometimes he condemned people to death. It was his decision. He never actually killed anyone though. That was all the fault of the hangman.
ReplyDelete"Killing a human being is murder, if the person is innocent. Abortion kills a developing human being, therefore is is murder."
ReplyDeleteSo is killing during wartime. I fail to see your point. Perhaps it's because you are using your belief in God to doublethink?
Dean,
ReplyDeleteIf I killed you because you were inconvenient to me, would it be murder?
If you say yes, then why is killing you murder and killing an unborn child not murder? What exactly is the difference between you and the unborn child?
Is it age or location? Is it because you are not inside another person's body that I can't kill you, or is it because you aren't inside my body? Or is it that you are past the age where it is allowable?
If you argue age, then where is the line? At what point of gestation is it allowable to kill an unborn child?
Your link with war indicates that you think there might be some sort of self-defence aspect to killing a baby ... surely you are not arguing this?
My religion has nothing to do with my strong conviction that abortion is murder. I believed in life when I believed in hardly anything at all.
LEFTRIGHTOUT SAYS
ReplyDelete“The question I have, is why the big deal? No doctor will be forced to actually perform an abortion, simply to provide patients with all the options, as is good medical practice.”
What is good about recommending killing as an option?
If the concern is about the good of a patients welfare why be so selective with its application. Let us apply that concern consistently.
What we need are health practitioners with the sensitivity to recognise" a pregnant patient constitutes not just one patient, but two.”
Should the Doctor not be equally concerned for both? What of the welfare of the unborn?
In Child Custody battles it is not uncommon for the newborn to have their own legal representation. If welfare of the patient is the principle driver behind these proposed new guidelines then I assume there will be no objection to the unborn also having their own legal representation in each termination request.
Informed consent is good medical practice is it not?
The raison d'etre for decriminalising abortion is that it be treated like any other medical procedure, but in no other medical procedures are surgeons reluctant to show the patient x-rays or ultrasounds of what is being operated on.
Informed consent is good medical practice is it not?
ReplyDeleteYes, it is, which is why abortion MUST be one of the options presented. Presenting abortion as an option does not mean it will be the sole choice made.
And no, a pregnant patient is just one person. My daughter in law is 4 weeks away from delivering my third grandchild, and I am truly looking forward to meeting the little man, and yet, if there was any complication that threatened her life I would prefer her life to be saved, even if it means I get no more gandchildren.
The life of the living is of far more importance than the life of the yet to live.
The life of the living is of far more importance than the life of the yet to live.
ReplyDeleteThat is such a selfish point of view. I think that as a parent you are obliged to live your life for your child's best interests and that obligation begins at conception. granted, that situation becomes infinitely more complicated when other siblings are involved, But as a father, I feel it is my duty to protect my children, and that would include forfeiting my life for theirs.
LRO, your final comment takes the debate away from 18,000 abortions in NZ a year and reduces it to discussing just a few dozen.
ReplyDeleteI think that is another discussion entirely, and does not serve as the reason to justify the other 18,000 abortions.
I also explained why abortion need not be an option to discuss in those other situations. At the very least, it is technically illegal, and suggesting illegal actions is incitement to crime. Secondly, for some people it is immoral. Thirdly, there is nothing to discuss. I would be surprised if people who knew how to get pregnant did not independently know abortion was an option.
I suggest we have expert abortionist who advertise their services, who can provide all the advice they need.
Since we are talking about a legal requirement to discuss all the options they would be required to advise all the negative side effects of abortion, something I think many Doctors fail to do.
Interestingly, I saw someone on a TV show claim that for a week after 9/11 no abortions were performed in the U.S and Planned Parenthood were getting anxious about it. When your life and the lives of others in your homeland is threatened, suddenly life becomes that much more precious.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't take them long to start up again though.
Zen, I was trying to personalise my opinions.
ReplyDeleteBut let's go back to the 17,940 abortions in 2008. What's your suggestion?
Almost 2/3rds of these abortions were to firts timers, so serial abortion in place of birth control isn't the major driver.
Some would have been because of failed contraception, as no contraceptive is 100% effective.
Some would have been as the result of rape. Now, I know the Pope is in favour of a 12 year old rape victim being forced to give birth, but I find that far more abhorrent than abortion. In fact, that's not too far removed from killing a daughter in the name of "honour".
Some would have been as the result of one night stands, but its pretty hard to fight against the biological urge to mate.
And some, no doubt were to eliminate a faulty foetus, one that would have been born deformed, born maybe without a brain as happened recently.
It is interesting to note that abortions have declined in recent years, live births have increased and live births outnumber abortions by around 3.5 to 1.
"Since we are talking about a legal requirement to discuss all the options they would be required to advise all the negative side effects of abortion, something I think many Doctors fail to do."
I agree that all options should have positive and negatives explained, but do you have any evidence for your assertion many doctors fail to do this, or is it just something you "think" in attempt to shore up your argument?
I marched with Bertram Wainer in the late 60's, early 70's and would do so again to ensure continuing access to good health care for women seeking a termination, rather than a return to the days of backyard abortions and corrupt police.
LRO, Thanks for the reply. I'll respond to all your points later, but have to go out now. So here's just one response to muse over:
ReplyDeleteSome would have been as the result of rape.
Again, a very very very very small number of those 17,000 abortions.
Now, I know the Pope is in favour of a 12 year old rape victim being forced to give birth
Highly subjective statement. In the same spirit then, we all know pro-aborts are all in favour of forcible abortion on 12 year olds irrespective of their own thoughts.
but I find that far more abhorrent than abortion. In fact, that's not too far removed from killing a daughter in the name of "honour".
I'm confused with your point. A women (or girl) gets raped and is killed for honour, and in the situation where a baby gets born as a result of rape you want that killed for the sake of honour.
You are no different to those that perform honour killings. Isn't your analogy shooting yourself in the foot?
And although it probably doesn't need saying, an honour killing is the ultimate abortion. It's the family deciding they don't want the hassle of looking after a baby of unapproved genetic heritage, or unapproved economic cost. It stops this sort of "problem" with absolute finality.
ReplyDeleteIn defense of his support for Doctors having to …. LRO states
ReplyDelete“Would you be comfortable with a Jehovah’s Witness doctor not talking about blood transfusion as an option?”
The inference being that denial of this option is on a par with Doctors not advising of abortion as an option
Are you not overlooking that:
A blood transfusion has the potential to save a live.
An abortion by its very definition takes a life. In a minuscule number of cases arguably abortion may save the life of the mother. Those cases aren’t the basis for opposition to abortion.
BJ
LTO states “…………….rather they did it to provide a service, and that service should include all the options, not just the ones the doctor prefers…..No one is being asked to perform an abortion against their conscience, they are simply being asked to provide information…”
ReplyDeleteSo LTO,why would this logic not extend to infanticide/suicide/euthanasia?
BJ
BJ, I am quite in favour of euthanasia, and hope to take advantage of reformed laws when my time comes. I have no desire to spend the last of my life as a dribble case relying on soemone else for my personal hygiene, or in a drug enduced trance to that the palliative care wonks can "learn valuable lessons".
ReplyDeleteIf someone is determined to end their life through suicide, who can stop them?
And, in a few cases of babies born with no hope for a future, I think a good case can be made out for infanticide, too.