Comments on: Pro-death Archbishops http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/ Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:56:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Robert Merkel http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218111 Robert Merkel Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:24:30 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218111 In any case, I think this thread is done. In any case, I think this thread is done.

]]> By: Nanuestalker http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218110 Nanuestalker Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:15:04 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218110 Robert - Let's be consistent shall we. #186 is trolling. Personally I can handle it, but I assume my response will be put in the sin-bin Robert -

Let’s be consistent shall we. #186 is trolling. Personally I can handle it, but I assume my response will be put in the sin-bin

]]> By: FDB http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218109 FDB Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:01:36 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218109 No no, just infuriated at Nanobrain's persistent unwillingness to discuss the actual issue of the thread and throw red herrings around. And his then accusing me of arguing in bad faith. No no, just infuriated at Nanobrain’s persistent unwillingness to discuss the actual issue of the thread and throw red herrings around. And his then accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

]]> By: Robert Merkel http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218108 Robert Merkel Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:44:23 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218108 Sorry FDB: I was referring to @167, not 168. Sorry FDB: I was referring to @167, not 168.

]]> By: Dr S http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218107 Dr S Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:42:03 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218107 Sorry FDB, I hope that wasn't at me... Sorry FDB, I hope that wasn’t at me…

]]> By: FDB http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218106 FDB Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:38:38 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218106 How infuriating. I give up. How infuriating.

I give up.

]]> By: Dr S http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218105 Dr S Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:30:19 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218105 Sorry Nanuestalker, I am just not convinced I have all that many rights. Ethical standards are not entirely set by doctors and nor should they be. They are certainly not set by individual doctors' conscience. My moral stance determines whether I can accept acting as a doctor, it does not determine how I should act once I become one. That is, rightly or wrongly, for others to decide. That is what professional ethics means. Now, who or what should decide those ethical standards? That is very slippery but the first and foremost arbiter of a minimal standard is the law. Frankly, most ethical principles are adjudicated by the civil law in Australia. The general medical council performs an equivalent role in the UK. Is this the only source of my ethics? No, of course not, but if you can't manage law-abiding conduct in your chosen role then it probably isn't the right one for you. Amoral? Yup. The article you link is a little naughty, talking about the act he says... "It defines abortion as "intentionally causing the termination of a woman's pregnancy". This is incorrect. This would include inducing a live birth prematurely for serious health risks and the management of ectopic pregnancies. This flawed definition enables the creation of the clinical fiction of "emergency abortions". And it is this misleading category that gives the apparent justification to the coercion of health professionals to participate in abortions." He objects to the term "emergency abortion" on the grounds of a sophistry of intent. Delivering a briefly live 20 weeker because mum is dying of autoimmune encephalopathy is an abortion to most eyes. Sure, delivering a 24 weeker is not necessarily so but not all fatal complications of pregnancy occur in the last trimester. The doctors involved are well within their rights to argue their case. If the law is passed, however, they will be expected to comply as a condition of keeping their license, as will I be if a euthanasia bill is passed despite my (irreligious) objections. Sorry Nanuestalker, I am just not convinced I have all that many rights. Ethical standards are not entirely set by doctors and nor should they be. They are certainly not set by individual doctors’ conscience. My moral stance determines whether I can accept acting as a doctor, it does not determine how I should act once I become one. That is, rightly or wrongly, for others to decide. That is what professional ethics means.

Now, who or what should decide those ethical standards? That is very slippery but the first and foremost arbiter of a minimal standard is the law. Frankly, most ethical principles are adjudicated by the civil law in Australia. The general medical council performs an equivalent role in the UK. Is this the only source of my ethics? No, of course not, but if you can’t manage law-abiding conduct in your chosen role then it probably isn’t the right one for you.

Amoral? Yup.

The article you link is a little naughty, talking about the act he says…

“It defines abortion as “intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy”. This is incorrect. This would include inducing a live birth prematurely for serious health risks and the management of ectopic pregnancies. This flawed definition enables the creation of the clinical fiction of “emergency abortions”. And it is this misleading category that gives the apparent justification to the coercion of health professionals to participate in abortions.”

He objects to the term “emergency abortion” on the grounds of a sophistry of intent. Delivering a briefly live 20 weeker because mum is dying of autoimmune encephalopathy is an abortion to most eyes. Sure, delivering a 24 weeker is not necessarily so but not all fatal complications of pregnancy occur in the last trimester.

The doctors involved are well within their rights to argue their case. If the law is passed, however, they will be expected to comply as a condition of keeping their license, as will I be if a euthanasia bill is passed despite my (irreligious) objections.

]]> By: Nanuestalker http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218104 Nanuestalker Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:41:21 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218104 Dr Eamonn Mathieson, an obstetric anaesthetist and a member of the Doctors in Conscience Against Abortion Bill group writes a good article on the ABC website. Some passionate & interesting comments from both sides of the debate follows it. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/02/2379845.htm" rel="nofollow">Proposed abortion laws threaten doctors' rights</a> The links to UK & Canadian articles are interesting as well. Dr Eamonn Mathieson, an obstetric anaesthetist and a member of the Doctors in Conscience Against Abortion Bill group writes a good article on the ABC website. Some passionate & interesting comments from both sides of the debate follows it.

Proposed abortion laws threaten doctors’ rights

The links to UK & Canadian articles are interesting as well.

]]> By: tigtog http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218103 tigtog Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:57:44 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218103 They do however receive funding for their performance of obstetric care, and an emergency termination of pregnancy when a lifethreatening complication of pregnancy develops is part of standard obstetric care. They do however receive funding for their performance of obstetric care, and an emergency termination of pregnancy when a lifethreatening complication of pregnancy develops is part of standard obstetric care.

]]> By: Nanuestalker http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218102 Nanuestalker Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:34:12 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/09/24/pro-death-archibishops/#comment-218102 And yes Adrien, Catholic hospitals receive funding / medicare payments, but not for abortions as they don't do them. And yes Adrien, Catholic hospitals receive funding / medicare payments, but not for abortions as they don’t do them.

]]>