Freedom of conscience
October 27th, 2009 by Anna Winter | Published in Ethics, Law, Medicine, Politics | 68 Comments
Just because somebody is a hypocrite doesn’t mean their argument is invalid. But when they’re a hypocrite and a high profile campaigner for a particular cause, it’s wise to look closely at the argument they are making.
For instance, just because Julian McGauran doesn’t believe in the rights of certain women and doctors to make a choice that fits with their ethical framework doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t have a point about protecting the rights of a different group doctors to make a choice that fits with their ethical framework.
But that aside, I reckon it’s still a good rule of thumb to assume that a man who is willing to release a woman’s private medical files to journalists who have no right to see them is probably not the go-to guy for a discussion of law and ethics.
So what’s his problem this time? The fact that the new Victorian abortion laws require that a doctor who chooses not to perform abortions must still provide information to a woman seeking one about where to find a doctor who can help her. And that in emergency life-threatening situations no doctor or nurse may refuse to perform an abortion.
That doctors and nurses cannot put their personal views ahead of a woman’s life should be completely uncontroversial. If there’s time and opportunity to find a doctor who isn’t morally opposed then nothing in this clause says they cannot hand the job over. But surely the idea that if the woman will die and there’s no-one else available to help in time that they must act to save the woman’s life is so uncontroversial that anyone who is genuinely pro-life would not object?
So I hope that the objection to the section 8 lies in the obligation to provide a woman with information about how to access an abortion in only non-life threatening situations. Understandable, but still wrong.
There’s a scene in the new Ricky Gervais movie “The Invention of Lying” where he is the only man in the world who even understands the concept of lying, pretense or fantasy. There’s a scene in which he uses this ability to convince a woman that the world will end if they don’t have sex right now. In this world, it’s the kind of comment that will get you somewhere on the scale between laughed at to kicked in the groin. But in a world where no-one else even comprehends the idea that someone might be making up stories? It would be rape. (I won’t spoil the movie by discussing how this story plays out; the plot details discussed here are all in the previews.)
A common objection that it’s a stupid requirement because women don’t need referrals to get an abortion is to misunderstand the problem that section 8 is supposed to address. Most women aren’t involved in the abortion debate. They rarely give the political issue much thought until they’re faced with choosing one. Most women don’t know that she doesn’t need a GP’s referral. Most specialist treatments do, so it isn’t difficult to see why women would think that. So when an anti-abortion doctor says that he won’t provide a referral, it isn’t enough that she doesn’t need one anyway. He’s framing his refusal in such a way as to imply that this will prevent her from getting one.
I’d be interested to hear from any lawyers who object to the section on the grounds of it being too broad or ineffective. But a law requiring that doctors, who are in a position of power in having knowledge and skills that most of their patients do not, are required to be very clear about how a woman can access a legally available service, is not an unreasonable restriction of their freedom.
While there is plenty of legitimate disagreement about the balance between positive and negative freedoms to have us all debating until the end of the world, I find it disappointing that “serious” libertarians cannot – or do not want to – comprehend the difference between refusing to be a part of something they are morally opposed to, and actively using their power to manipulate another’s right to exercise their own conscience. All political groupings attract a certain type of person – one who supports a political ideology out of a sense that they stand to gain personally from it. For libertarians, one of those groups is the rich powerful man who doesn’t need much in the way of legal protection and so cares little about those who do. I don’t say this with the purpose of attacking libertarianism, and I expect that this thread not become that either. But as an outside observer, it seems contrary to any sensible libertarianism that a political movement dedicated to the right for all people to live as freely as possible would oppose a law that denies people the right to prevent others from making properly informed choices.
Update: Sinclair Davidson expands his objections, which now include the argument that “public policy should ever encourage doctor-hopping”. That’s right, a libertarian is upset because section 8 may cause a woman to go elsewhere for a legal procedure, rather than accepting the view of her first, anti-abortion doctor. And Guy Rundle diagnoses them with a case of fear of girl germs.
First of all, I agree that Section 8 (3) and (4) are uncontroversial. Second, I’m a moderate libertarian who supports abortion on demand in the first trimester, and abortion by necessity thereafter. Though I’m open to being convinced that’s not ideal.
“a law that denies people the right to prevent others from making properly informed choices.”
Is that what it is? I think there’s plenty of room for disagreement there.
I’ve been struggling to put this into a concise, coherent form, and failing. So bear with me.
Leaving aside those who believe a woman doesn’t have a right to an abortion, a libertarian position could be that a woman’s rights aren’t being infringed by a doctor’s assertion of his or her own rights. The doctor doesn’t prevent the woman making a properly informed choice, the doctor refuses to participate in the woman’s assertion of her right to an abortion. Section 8 (1)(b) abrogates the doctor’s right.
One could argue, as you do in your post, that there are consequentialist arguments for limiting a doctor’s right to freedom of conscience, but I would still argue that these problems are better dealt with by other means. If a law is necessary, how about making it compulsory for doctors/hospitals having a sign saying they won’t perform abortions and leave it at that? Why the necessity of forcing them to refer the patient?
I’m reminded of that pithy slogan – “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” Anti-abortion doctors are simply living that rule to the full, by not giving them either. Section 8(1)(b) is changing it to “Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one, but make sure everyone who asks gets one!” You see the problem with that?
All that said, this is not something I think libertarians should get too worked up about. Yes, it’s a diminishment of freedom, but there are bigger fish to fry.
“Just because somebody is a hypocrite doesn’t mean their argument is invalid. ”
oh, thought you meant Clive Hamilton
;-)
Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one, but make sure everyone who asks
gets oneis able to fully access correct information about their health options!I don’t agree. The doctor is preventing the woman from making a properly informed choice by not informing her that she doesn’t need a referral. That’s an infringment of her rights.
Jarrah, I appreciate your difficulties. It’s a hard argument to pin down on both sides I think.
But my main point is that the libertarian objections only hold if we are dealing with a fully informed populace who know where to get information and what their rights are. But for many people, they don’t place a lot of importance on informing themselves. Many people are taught to trust their doctor. This places them in a position of power, bringing with it added responsibility not to use that power to prevent another from being fully informed.
It’s not enough for the doctor to say I won’t help you get one if that isn’t followed by: but here’s somewhere you can go for impartial advice if that’s what you choose to do.
Anna,
I think you are being too demanding. We will never have a fully informed populace. Now I’m going to make an assumption I think is realistic, if a doctor has certain objections and knows the background of their paitient, they’re going to assume they won’t complain, even under the Act and so will give out the advice as they see best anyway.
To an anti abortionist doctor, a service offering abortions is not impartial. You’re trying to give anti abortionists impartiality by legislation. I just don’t think it can work.
Mindy – we live in an era of very high information availability. I don’t think it is wise to end a right to conscientious objection over a right to be fully informed – since information is virtually free on family planning.
Good luck guys, I hope your thread stays civil and intelligent longer than ours at catallaxy did.
“but here’s somewhere you can go for impartial advice if that’s what you choose to do.”
Except the doctor presumably believes they are being impartial, and that pro-choice people are not.
Also, no-one is really impartial. Everyone has their prejudices, moral beliefs, socialised responses, whatever you like to call them.
Lastly, is impartiality the correct response in matters of life and death?
But my main point is that the libertarian objections only hold if we are dealing with a fully informed populace who know where to get information and what their rights are
This is the problem with other libertarian arguments re: health. The idea that privatisation/voucherisation of health care, for instance, would improve the system is based on a similar presupposition.
My second comment never made it through, but Mark makes roughly the same point on impartiality.
Anna’s not demanding a fully informed populace, she’s saying that in the inevitable absence of such a thing, experts do infringe on people’s rights by failing to inform them.
I’m a lawyer. Officially, the legal system is set up so that everyone has access to justice, even without a lawyer. You can represent yourself at trial, as an obvious example. Legislation and cases are available in libraries and online for free. But realistically, if I’m the only lawyer in a small town, and I refuse to take someone’s case, and fail to inform them that other resources are out there, I’ve materially disadvantaged them.
As for ‘bigger fish to fry’ – well, a) it’s not a zero sum game, we can in fact care about several things at once, and b) are you kidding me that lack of access to abortion is unimportant? For real?
Jarrah, Mark: we don’t expect impartiality from our doctors, we expect correct information and good practice—they’re quite different things.
The availability of family planning information on Doctor Internet and elsewhere (ie. provided by NGOs) is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Information provided free is not necessarily good information.
All these excruciating arguments miss the point, which is this:
1. Doctors are licensed by the State.
2. Therefore, if the State says that doctors who object to abortions must refer patients to doctors who do not, the first group of doctors will do what they are bloody well told.
3. If they don’t like it, they can practise medicine elsewhere.
Nevertheless, there are legitimate objections to the above.
1. How does the law intend to enforce the obligation for a medical practitioner to apprise herself of the opinions of any other medical practitioner? Medical practitioners may refer patients to other practitioners they know have an objection to performing abortions. Any legal action proceeding from this will necessarily entail what information the practitioner may have in her mind. Alternatively, the practitioner may refer the patient to a person on the other side of the country. In other words, the law creates too many loopholes.
2. Section 2 does not indicate whether the practitioner and the nurse are under an obligation to perform an abortion when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger even if the woman has not asked for an abortion.
At risk of repeating myself, my problem with this argument is the proposition that we (doctors) have unlimited fredom of conscience. Or, even, that my conscience has any bearing on the matter.Ethics, professional ethics, over rides the individual’s moral decisions. There are basic standards to be a practitioner, meet them or go do something else.
Doctors and pharmacists should be obliged to direct women to the appropriate areas to access abortions.
At the moment the Federal government funds pregnancy advice lines operated by pro-life groups which do not provide information about abortion.
How easy is it for pregnant women to access abortion advice? Quite easy for the socially well connected. But those who are not so well connected rely on the telephone pregnancy advice line and their doctor.
Blokes should remember that an unwanted pregnancy is a source of shame and public display of lack of control and planning that may lead to social ostracism, loss of employment, loss of education opportunity and cause family ructions.
The outcome of an full term pregnancy is a baby that may be reared by a woman who isn’t equipped to raise a child to reach its full potential because of lack of family support, the poverty of existing on single parent pension etc. Yes, I know single women who are wonderful mothers but I can point to whole housing estates of kids being reared in quiet desperate poverty.
Why is it that men are the most tenacious anti-abortion arguers?
Are there doctors whose religious (or other) beliefs prevent them from having anything to do with a blood transfusion?
What would such a doctor do if presented with a patient whose life depends upon a blood transfusion?
From remarks made at Catallaxy http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=6665#comments I doubt Jarrah is “a moderate libertarian who supports abortion on demand ……”
billie, I’m not interested in debating people’s motives or beliefs here. It’s a great way to ensure the actual issue gets ignored.
OK, response in omnibus version.
“b) are you kidding me that lack of access to abortion is unimportant? For real?”
Please read carefully – I said that people shouldn’t invest too much in opposing the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act on a doctors’ rights basis.
“Jarrah, Mark: we don’t expect impartiality from our doctors, we expect correct information and good practice”
And if their idea of good practice is different to yours? This is the crux of the matter. You can’t fob it off with faux-neutral platitudes.
“doctors will do what they are bloody well told”
Nice sentiment.
“Why is it that men are the most tenacious anti-abortion arguers?”
If you’ll allow me to be a devil’s advocate, I’d say it’s because they can’t get pregnant, and there’s a millennia-old tradition of men controlling women’s lives that we are still trying to escape. I’ve also found men to be more likely to be absolutists than women, but not by a lot.
“I doubt Jarrah is “a moderate libertarian who supports abortion on demand ……””
Just because I can see several sides to an argument doesn’t mean I’m not who I say I am. I’m on lengthy record as an advocate of women’s right to choose abortion (I used to go by the pseudonym ‘fatfingers’ if you want to check), though my support decreases the further along the pregnancy is. That’s because I believe personhood is the measure of human life, and I know it doesn’t start at conception, but I also know it’s present before birth.
Also, I rarely enter a blog conversation unless I disagree with someone. Otherwise, what’s the point? It means that I argue for freedom of conscience here, but argue for abortion rights at Currency Lad’s blog. It’s called “avoiding the circle jerk”.
Linking to Catallaxy is a great way of ensuring the actual issue gets ignored – it’s practically an invitation to stoush.
Meanwhile, McGuaran says “pro-life doctors and nurses have for their moral beliefs been banished into modern-day catacombs”. Sounds good.
My view on this is very close to Mark Hill’s. I don’t think it’s possible to have a fully informed population. If it were, many things (not just this legislation) about our society would be very different. Advertising wouldn’t work for a start, which is an amusing thought :)
One of the most pervasive characteristics of modern legislative and political micromanagement in developed countries is its perfectionism. Everyone must be perfectly well informed is a version of this. Laws are passed and then patched and repatched in an attempt to ensure this happens, often producing all sorts of negative unintended consequences. Sometimes the outcome is worse than the situation that pertained before the laws were enacted.
One thing that lawyering has taught me is that we need to be modest about what the law can achieve — and modest about what other public policies can achieve, because we can’t be perfect. I am troubled (in a minor way, like Jarrah; this libertarian has plenty of other fish to fry) by this legislation because it is sidelining freedom of conscience as part of an attempt to achieve perfection in information provision.
Jarrah, Mark, Skepticlawyer (Helen). Plus me. That makes four out of the closet libertarians. Careful or Larvatus Prodeo might become a libertarian haunt.
In my book a doctor has a right to refuse to provide advise on abortion. However such a doctor really ought to refrain from charging for the consultation because they are not providing the advise being paid for.
In terms of the victorian legislation it seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Is there any body of evidence that doctors are systematically tricking women who want abortions into going full term?
Careful or Larvatus Prodeo might become a fascist haunt. Clearly Sam is a fascist:-
By this logic if the state decides that women should not have abortions then women should do what they are bloody well told. Nice work Sam.
Of course they do. What they don’t have the right to do is practice medicine. If they want the privilege of being licensed to practice medicine then they will provide the services required of a medical practitioner, and those services include providing information about abortion options.
By the ‘freedom of conscience’ logic doctors should be able to let patients die if they decide their conscience lets them. “You’re black! Sorry my morals prevent me from helping you; you can die of that easily treatable disease.” “Oh, you’re gay? Sorry my morals prevent me from saving your life, you can bleed out in the ER.”. Seems like a scary world to live in to me.
Terje, doctors in Victoria are licensed by the State of Victoria. Hence the Victorian Government can tell them what to do as a condition of the license. If they don’t like it they can move somewhere where the licence conditions are more to their taste.
Women are not licensed by the State. Neither is their fertility. Your comparison is fatuous.
Sam – you are confusing “can” and “should”. The state can probably organise for naughty doctors to be shot dead. Wouldn’t make it right. By your logic if the state says naughty doctors should be shot dead then the rest of us should simply accept that doctors shouldn’t be naughty or else leave. As I suggested earlier you have the clear hallmarks of a fascist. You think that might makes right. Your comment was utterly disgraceful. Your mindset is precisely the reason I oppose granting too much power to governments.
Terje, as you know, the State cannot “organise” to break its own laws against murder.
Abortion, as you know, unlike criminal murder, is not illegal, merely frowned upon by a subset of citizens.
Fascism, as you know, was a political movement marked by the unusual disregard of laws—so I’m not sure how Sam’s point that doctors should abide by the rule of law is in any way Fascist, except in the degraded common modern usage that any political position not in concert with one’s own is Fascist.
Terje, shooting dead naughty doctors is not within the bounds of community norms. Abortion and the provision of information about it clearly is, notwithstanding the objections of a small number of people with religious or other objections.
All this throwing about the label fascist shows how bereft of arguments you are. (And incidentally, I had family members who were victims of real fascists in Europe during the war, as opposed to kindergarten-libertarian fantasy fascists, so I find it offensive as well.)
The State tells us what to do all the time. You want to drive? You have to have a driver’s license. You want to travel overseas? You have to have a passport. You want to own a semi automatic gun? Too bad, you’re not allowed. You want to water your lawn? Only at prescribed times. You want an antibiotic? You’ll need a prescription from a licensed doctor.
This is not fascism. It is normal life in a civilised society.
Spot on, Liam.
BTW, back in the early 70s, a pharmacist in Melbourne politely informed me he did not sell condoms. (This was pre-AIDS, but well after a scientific understanding of human conception.) As I hurried out of his shop, I noticed his surname was not inconsistent with an Irish/RC heritage.
I believe his attitude and sales practice in that instance was based on “conscience”.
Is there a law now that would prohibit him from refusing to sell condoms?
Still happens, Ambi.
They’d probably get into trouble as a franchisee, but there’s an independent Greek pharmacist in North Fitzroy who sells no condoms or birth control pills. His main trade seems to be in methodone.
FDB – if his main trade is methodone, he can probably afford to be picky about his other customers ;-)
Crikey, I’m surprised, FDB.
At that time, we lived in Fitzroy, but had essayed to venture into Darkest Footscray. Needless to say, it worried us.
FDB, there are also pharmacists who refuse to sell methadone. (I guess they don’t want the dirty smelly junkies frightening the paying customers). I bet you could even find one who refused to sell either.
If they don’t like it they can move somewhere where the licence conditions are more to their taste.
This argument – or the other version of it, ‘if they don’t like it, they should resign and take up a non-medical profession’ – is needlessly divisive.
Medicine needs more practitioners, not less.
Yes but we need medical practitioners who will do their job more.
There are plenty of medical services a conscientious objector can provide without performing an act he/she chooses not to. It should be much easier to make allowances for this in a law without dispensing with his/her services altogether.
This is case where the right suddenly becomes as keen as the left on quoting human rights conventions, perhaps it shows that of themselves these conventions offer little useful guide to policy.
I’d be willing to accept that the section as it stands could go a little too far. Perhaps a toned down version more along the lines of the doctor not being allowed to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion, including by providing incorrect information (eg “No, I won’t provide a referral” vs “My moral objections prevent me from helping you obtain an abortion, but you don’t need a referral from me anyway”).
As for the second part, the objection to that over at Catallaxy seems to be in part that it over-rules the desires of the woman who would be legally forced to have one when her life is at stake. Strikes me as really serious reaching, and as I said over there, the law says “Despite any conscientious objection to abortion”, it doesn’t say “Despite any objection of the woman or her next of kin”.
The idea that in a life-threatening emergency a doctor, whose job it is to provide healthcare to their patients, could refuse to provide healthcare to their patients because they don’t agree with the choice she makes is anti-freedom is just wrong.
@ Skepticlawyer, I agree with you about it being impossible to have a fully informed population, if only because there is so much knowledge now that no-one can understand everything.
But that’s precisely why this matters – because patients pay doctors (through private fees or taxes) to provide health care, just as they pay accountants, lawyers and other professionals. I really don’t see how this law isn’t along the lines of forcing doctors to do their jobs. In the same way, if there were a legal option that a lawyer had moral objections to, they would (I’m guessing?) have the right to say that they had moral problems with it, but not to pretend that option didn’t exist so that their client wouldn’t take it.
I think this is similar. When we’re dealing with women who are not familiar with either abortion law or the medical aspects, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that doctors provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.
The Victorian law was enacted because doctors in Bendigo refused to perform abortions or inform women where they could access abortions. In April 2008 an abortion clinic opened in Bendigo.
Abortion should be a medical procedure like any other that doctors perform or provide referrals for. In the past there were stories about doctors mucking about wasting time so the pregnant woman ran out of time to have a safe abortion.
As Sam said if you want the license to practice medicine then you have to abide by the rules governing the practice of that license. Dissenting doctors can always go to Queensland.
*kindergarten-libertarian fantasy fascists*
Not only do I think this is unnecessarily condescending, it also ignores the perspective of the dissenting doctors.
How else would you characterise being compelled to participate in what you regard as murder?
Terje was right. This is a solution looking for a problem.
You don’t need a referral to go to an abortion clinic except in WA and you’re not going to be refused an abortion at an abortion clinic on grounds of conscientious objection.
What you need to understand is that those who oppose abortion (like I do) believe it is killing. I hold it as wrong alongside acts like torture or domestic violence. To me it is an act like nuclear war or capital punishment. This will sit uncomfortably with some of you but it is my view. It is a core issue that goes to the centre of one’s being.
The above article suggests that if someone asks you to do something and you believe it is wrong then you should just send them to someone who believes it is right. Imagine. “Um sorry, I don’t believe in torture but I know this really good soldier that does. I will send you to him.”
Those who oppose abortion will not refer to other doctors. To think a law wil make them shows a complete underestimation of how core these beleifs are to pro life people. It also shows how far the authoritarioan left is prepared to go to undermine freedom in implemeting their agenda. Anyone who would seek to force doctors and nurses to assist in abortion might as well line up alongside thoe in dictatorships.
That’s nice for you. Good luck with that comparison of a common medical procedure to nuclear warfare.
The rest of us will get along with legislation and public policy in the world of reasonable adults.
TimT, I agree, but if a medical practitioner is dealing with women who are or who might be pregnant, and for whatever reason they see abortion as being equal on a moral level to murder, torture or nuclear war, honestly, they really need to look for more suitable work.
Typical response Liam from one who refuses to address the issue – the state forcing someone to do something they believe is immoral and goes against their being. To you it is not like being ordered to torture someone, to many it is. Even if abortion is legal doctors who oppose it should NEVER be forced to do it. This is a violation of basic human rights. By siding with the state in trying to force a doctor to violate his or her core beliefs you side with fascists. You side with those who would conscript people into war. The issue is not abortion Liam. I did not make an argument for or against leagal abortion. I agued for freedom and explained my view of abortion. You side with the logic used by the school yard bully – force. It is granting the state power to force people to do things they believe are evil.
Why is so hard for some people to understand that doctors are not like Joe Shmoe citizen here? Doctors can’t adopt a smorgasbord approach to their obligations under their medical licensing. If the State says they’ve got to refer, then that trumps their personal feelings on the mstter, end of discussion.
Joe Shmoe, who is not licensed by the state on medical matters, is under no such obligation. So Spana, if someone stops you in the street and asks for directions to the nearest abortion clinic, feel free to refuse to answer.
No Sam, you are adopting the view that if the state gives an order it must be obeyed. The Nuremburg trials showed this is not the case. Doctors who believe that abortion is wrong should not have to obey the state. It is interesting to see pro abortion left suddenly come rushing to the defence of the state when it suits the implementation of their ideological agenda. Are you arguing that when you enter any profession you must be prepared to do all acts which anyone in that profession does? Does a pilot of a commercial airline also have the legal obligation to fly planes in Iraq and bomb civilians as a condition of registration. What utter rot! There is no logic to your argument other than trying to use the state to force people to do something in line with your political views. It seems the abortion lobby is not happy with legal abortion – now you want to force pro life doctors to abort babies too. What next, conscription of civilians to abortion clinics?
There is a thorny autonomy v duty question buried in this, as Dr S alluded to above. Some professional associations impose duties on their members (the Inns of Court, for example). Although there was an attempt over at Catallaxy to argue that the cab-rank rule no longer applies, I can assure people that most barristers submit to it: we have to, or we will stop getting briefs. It’s that simple. Of course I don’t doubt that barristers at the very top of the profession can wriggle out of it, simply because they are in such demand, but as any lawyer knows, those barristers are (a) relatively rare and (b) not always better than a younger or less experienced barrister who has to take work come what may.
In this case, the professional association has imposed a duty that becomes part and parcel of being a barrister. It overrides one’s conscience. It is conceivable that a medical association could do the same thing, tying the duty to medical practice. Steve at the Pub’s question way up the thread is a good one: what do JW doctors do when they have to provide a blood transfusion? One suspects they do it regardless of their views, or risk being struck off for medical malpractice (I am using lawyers’ terminology here, if there are any doctors reading please feel free to correct; I haven’t done a huge amount of plaintiff law).
That said, the cab-rank rule doesn’t apply to solicitors (who really can pick and choose their work with impunity) and I am still uncomfortable with the state taking on the aegis of the professional association and imposing duties independently of it. It really does seem to exclude conscience all together.
Scepticlaywer. The cab rank rule and requiring someone to do something that they consider murder really cannot be compared. Of course in jobs there are some obligations. We can’t confuse though what are genuine issues of conscience and what are things you don’t want to do. Again, remember that to someone who opposes abortion it is seen as murder. Just as the argument that people, if Australian, can be conscripted is utter rubbish so too is the argument that pro lifers should be forced to do abortions. This is just the extreme end of pro abortion lobby trying to pick a fight. Do you really think a pro life doctor will turn around and kill an unborn baby because the state told them to?
Spana, your straw men arguments are just silly. As I wrote earlier in response to Terje, it is a matter of community norms. Abortion is clearly within the bounds of acceptable community norms and has been for over 30 years. You don’t like abortion, obviously, but your views are aberrant. (Face it, if your opinions were the norm, the law wouldn’t have been passed in the first place.) Doctors simply don’t have the right to place their idiosyncratic preferences above their professional duties.
Sending Jews to the gas chambers, on the other hand, lies well outside community norms; relevantly for the Nuremberg trials, the international community. On that occasion, the following orders defence was rejected, rightly so. No one expects commercial pilots to bomb civilians, but we do expect it of air force pilots, or at least we don’t seriously condemn it.
Sam, slavery was once within norms too. That never made slavery right. If you make the norms argument then you go down a slippery slope. Do we really want to apply that to refugees? To capital punishment? To racism in certain places and eras. Be careful. The point remains that even if one accepts that society will tolerate abortion (it certainly is not in favour of abortion on demand up to nine months) that does not mean that the state has a right to force pro life doctors to abort babies. You are trying to argue that a doctor MUST doeverything within the field of medicine yet you say that pilots can pick and choose. Why? Why not require all pilots agree to fight in wars as a condition of registration? Because it is a stupid idea. Same with doctors. ALL doctors should not be forced to do something they do not believe in.
Anyway, you obviously underestimate how strongly pro lifers believe in the sanctity of life. Pro life doctors will not start aborting or referring because Big Brother tells them too. If you believe that this law will make any difference think again. Do you really think Catholic hospitals are suddenly going to become abortion clinics? People will go to jail rather than commit these abuses.
Spana, if a person has a strong moral conviction that abortion is wrong, then why become a doctor. Join a branch of the medical profession which doesn’t conflict with those strongly held convictions, or another profession altogether. Would you join the armed forces if you are a conscientious objector?
you obviously underestimate how strongly pro lifers believe in the sanctity of life
Yeah, they let millions of women die in childbirth in developing countries by not only banning abortion but reproductive health organisations, in case they might provide abortions. And back on topic i.e. the legislation Anna’s discussing – they’d refuse to terminate a woman’s pregnancy if it’s life threatening. Being anti abortion is not equal to being pro life.
I’m not in favour of criminalising abortion but I suspect that this law will invigorate those that are. It is a divisive reform. When you start denying people freedoms they feel strongly about you stir up trouble. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Surprisingly, perhaps, TerjeP, I almost agree with you concerning the issue of the law requiring doctors perform an abortion in life-threatening circumstances, in that I don’t think there really is much call for it, I don’t think it’s happening now, and it could have the effect of mobilising an opposition that was otherwise dormant.
However, the law about requiring a referral (in the sense of, here’s where you need to go) is actually a necessary law. It isn’t a problem that gets a lot of attention outside activist circles, but it is a problem. I’d recommend having a look at the submissions to the pregnancy counselling inquiry a few years back – both pro and anti. There is a real attitude amongst some abortion opponents that their duty is to prevent abortion with whatever means necessary. Sometimes this really does include half-truths, misrepresentation and stalling.
These tactics wouldn’t be so harmless if it were against, say, plastic surgery. A few weeks delay wouldn’t affect the actual treatment. But stalling a time-sensitive treatment such as abortion by letting her believe that she needs a referral but isn’t allowed one, or making her think she has to wait to wait to see a new GP, etc. could mean the difference between her getting one early, or not at all.
“…slavery was once within norms too.”
“If you believe that this law will make any difference think again.”
You might wanna contemplate those two separate lines you penned Spana and then go back and research the incremental and byzantine legal processes by which slavery finally became illegal throughout the British Empire.
The 20% of the population who oppose abortion [and often want to restrict access to contraception ] don’t actually worry about the end product of a pregnancy.
Who is left holding the baby?
Who is going to feed, house and clothe the brat for the next 17 years – school leaving age has been raised to 17
Who is going to buy the computer, iPod, Nikes and other accoutrements of modern youth?
As we can’t send kids to work in mill or mine from age 5 the impost on mothers is huge. And I would argue that in modern society a woman who hasn’t completed high school is poorly equipped to rear her child to be a capable individual in our society. So do we want to yank pregnant girls out of school and force them to be young mothers or do we want them to wait until they are older to become mothers.
So why do these deviants try to dictate their standards to the rest of society?
Probably for the same reason that you and I oppose infanticide. They think it is immoral and unacceptable.
Re: Terje 51
The only people who feel strongly about this are the activist Right to Lifers, and some libertarians, who can be best described as a sect, as far as political groupings go, and whose influence on public opinion is non-existent.
Not even the AMA cares. Perusal of the AMA Victoria’s web site shows they haven’t put out one media release on this subject, let alone actually tried to do anything about the iniquity imposed upon some of their members and their consciences.
Has there been a single case of a doctor being forced to act against his or her conscience by referring a pregnant patient? Apparently not. Has any doctor publicly said anything about this apparently terrible situation even as a matter of principle? If they feel strongly about this, they aren’t saying so. Doctors are not usually shy about speaking up when they feel they are being dudded.
This issue is not going to ignite the anti-abortion counter revolution.
TerjeP I don’t think infanticide is immoral.
Like philosopher Professor Peter Singer I have no problem with infanticide in those instances when the baby will not be able to live anything approaching a normal healthy life.
I have cared for a severely disabled person and so are well aware of the demands that are placed on carers and the level of support provided by our community. I have an appreciation of the costs of hospitalisation and institutionalisation and the shortfalls of institutionalisation.
As the costs of hospitalisation are so high you will probably find that health insurance company actuaries also prefer infanticide to keeping severely disabled or sick infants alive.
Um, yes. It’s called “the law”.
Legal question – if a doctor refuses to do the procedure, and refuses to provide information as to alternative practitioners to a woman for whom an abortion is required because of medical complications, would the refusing doctor then be culpable of malpractice in the event of ‘poor medical outcomes’ either later in the pregnancy, during the birth or postpartum. And would charges of malpractice also extend to the resulting baby if it also suffered medical problems?
I’m just going to put my foot down now, and remind you that this thread is not about the morality of abortion, and it is even less about infanticide.
Seriously.
Sorry – that question is in relation to existing definitions of malpractice as well as the legislation in question.
Spana – where do you draw the “conscience” line?
I know a Christian woman who firmly believes that God put different coloured people on the earth in different places specifically because He intended them to live apart. She is physically and morally repulsed by the sight of anyone who isn’t of the exact ethnicity as her, believing that they shouldn’t be in her corner of the world. To her this is a core spiritual belief; part of being a good God-fearing Christian. To us it is ridiculous and a misrepresentation of Biblical text, but there you go. But what if she were a doctor?
Would it be okay for her to pick and choose her patients and be driven by her own conscience and belief system?
Is it okay for a Jewish doctor to use his “conscience” to refuse to treat a woman wearing a hijab?
Or an Indian doctor refusing to deal with Pakistani patients?
Legislating in such a way as to give people leeway for their conscience will aways lead to problems because there will aways be those who feel the need to deny the human rights of others, especially when they themselves are in a position of power and/or privilege.
A quick look at the history of any civil rights movement will give you ample proof of that.
This Serbian psychiatrist appears to have held strongly held views, and acted upon them.
Because I can’t seem to do proper trackbacks either, here’s a manual version.
Coming at this from a different perspective is how absolutley unnecessary this law is and how it is really an act of provocation by the abortion lobby. No pro life doctor will obey this law. Put yourself in the situation as a public servant who was ordered to flick the switch on an electric chair or lose your job. Most on here oppose capital punishment. How many of you would obey the law and kill the prisoner or would you sell out your beliefs and keep your job? Doctors who believe abortion is killing will not follow this law. Secondly, how may life endangering situations arise where there only happens to be a pro life doctor around? None! Once again, pro or anti abortion, this law can only be viewd as an attack on basic rights to freedom of thought and conscience. It once again shows that the left is only concerned about those things when it effects their conscience.
Oh yeah. I await answers from those who woul kill the prisoner and keep their job.
To the state fascists above.
The relevant colleges – surgeon, physician, GP, obstetrics, etc. – overwhelmingly run the ethical, practice, treatment requirements, protocols, and guidelines that doctors are subject to; not the legislature. If YOU want Wilson Tuckey and Tony Abbott in charge of dictating how doctors should think, YOU are free to get the very next cab to the airport.
Every single doctor in this country would have objections to deny certain treatments, procedures, for any of one or more of a million reasons – ethical, moral, aesthetic, ill-informed, dictatorial, right-before-his/her-time. For example, there are now many medical practices that will not prescribe benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, etc), despite these medicines being totally legal and a tremendously significant and globally-acknowledged source of palliative care for a great many maladies. Similarly, the psychiatric colleges are split on ECT. Many see modern ECT treatments as a godsend for certain mood disorders, while others see ECT as evil as the most rabid anti-abortionist sees abortion, and thus will not perform them.
Just as it should not be the university’s job to fix up atrocious schooling by admitting imbeciles, I see no reason why an anti-abortion GP should be obliged to do anything more than say “m’am, you have come to the wrong place, I am not an abortionist, and just as you do not require a GP’s referral for Botox, or admission to the ER, you do not need one for an abortion. Good day to you”.
The job of executioner is a speciality, Spana. You have to apply for it specially-like. They don’t just get the janitor to do it on his lunch break.