Abortion Views

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Zomo33

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
To all the people who are going to be interviewed or have interviewed: What do you think about abortion and what are you views on it?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Wow, I was just thinking today how pre-allo really needs a post about abortion views! What an original, completely necessary idea for a thread! :rolleyes:

To the OP: if you are really interested in this topic, do a search for one of the approximately 10,000 posts that have previously come up in this forum alone on the topic of abortion. What you will find is, absolutely nothing of any use to you. All you need to know are your own views on abortion, if you can articulate these well you'll be fine for the interview, if it even comes up.
 
Abortion happens to be a very sensitive issue.I have come to adapt both pro and against-abortion views.It all depends on the circumstances. for example,while sexual assault may warrant an abortion,it should not be considered as a means to rectify an unwanted pregnancy as a result irresponsible sexual activity. There are other factors such as the economic stabilty of the people involved, cultural background, age,moral and social beliefs.Having all these in mind,may make the decision easier or difficult.In the end it is the factor that plays the most important role that determines whether abortion may be a viable option.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I personally don't like the idea of unwanted children.
 
I think it's important to state your beliefs but I also think it's important to show that you can understand the opposing viewpoint.

Of my three interviews I was only asked an abortion question once. They asked me what I would do as a physician if a pregnant woman were to come to me asking for an abortion.
 
Shredder said:
I personally don't like the idea of unwanted children.


The question of abortion being morally right or wrong is in no way connected to unwanted children. The only way to justify it is to say it's not murder. If it's murder then no matter if it benefits the mother or not, it's still wrong.
 
Medikit said:
I think it's important to state your beliefs but I also think it's important to show that you can understand the opposing viewpoint.

Of my three interviews I was only asked an abortion question once. They asked me what I would do as a physician if a pregnant woman were to come to me asking for an abortion.


Assuming you actually want an anwer to this and arent just setting out to build another thread filled with contention that will never reach a definative conclusion, then medikit is right. In an interview, the point is not to find an objective right or wrong. They are testing to find if you can appreciate the shades of gray (and also your tolerance of opposing viewpoints/religious beliefs/etc.)

The answer doesnt matter rather its HOW you answer thats important. (this is how they can ask "whats wrong with healthcare" -- a thesis topic, or 5000 page book-- and expect you to answer in a sentance.)
 
Zomo33 said:
To all the people who are going to be interviewed or have interviewed: What do you think about abortion and what are you views on it?

I don't think we should take away the life of un-born child, but under certain circumstances the procedure maybe necessary.
 
Shredder said:
I personally don't like the idea of unwanted children.

I personally don't like the idea of unwanted children being killed considering there are so many people who would gladly take them off your hands and raise them in a loving home.
 
Medikit said:
I think it's important to state your beliefs but I also think it's important to show that you can understand the opposing viewpoint.

Of my three interviews I was only asked an abortion question once. They asked me what I would do as a physician if a pregnant woman were to come to me asking for an abortion.


I'm curious as to what you said.
 
I am very much against abortion. In my point of view, abortion takes away the opportunity for unborn children to live. In my opinion, it's nothing shy of murder. I don't think that I will ever be able to understand why we, as human beings, feel as though we have the right to take another's life away...No, I don't think I'll ever really understand...

As a future physician, I honestly struggle with an answer to the question about patients seeking abortions...
 
Medikit said:
Of my three interviews I was only asked an abortion question once. They asked me what I would do as a physician if a pregnant woman were to come to me asking for an abortion.

PsychoDoc said:
I'm curious as to what you said.

What else would you say besides either:
1) i would preform the abortion
2) i would refer my patient to someone who would preform the abortion
 
Talking to people on both sides of the issue, I think it comes down to whether or not you consider a fetus (or embryo, or zygote) to be fully morally equivalent to a "person". While all types of life begin at conception (or rather before conception, since sperm and eggs are living things), I don't believe moral personhood begins at conception. Others may believe it does, typically for religious reasons (they believe a human zygote receives a soul at conception). But like other posters mentioned, this issue has been discussed to death on these boards. Try a search.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I was adopted, so this is a tough one for me. I can understand many points on both sides of the argument. Nonetheless, I'm sure glad that my birthmother chose to give me a chance!
 
"safe legal and rare"

thats my abortion refrain
 
I hope this does not turn into another flame war. The abortion issue can never be completely solved, there will always be people with opposing views.

Now, to the OP, I am going to give you the benfit of the doubt and assume you are not a Troll.

Someone said the ADCOMS want to see if you appreciate the shades of gray, and that is exactly right.

Some of my interviewers asked about a woman coming to me to request an abortion. Now, I personally do not believe in abortions. I gave an honest answer. I said I would not perform the abortion. However, I also said "it is not my place to judge this patient, and I would not. I said I would explain the alternatives to the patient, and then I would simply refer the patient to another doctor that wouild be willing to entertain the abortion option. I would even assist the patient in setting up the appointment" like it ir not, abortion is, at this time, legal. By answering the way I did, I maintain my own morals, I still helped the patient, I educated the patient about other options (like adoption) and helped the patient get set up with another doc so she could make her decision without my bias. Her decisdion will be between her, the doc, and God. I did my job and the patient will ultimatly get the care she wants, which I helped her with.

Conversely, for those who do believe in abortions, I think the best thing to do is still offer all the alternatives, tell the patient to take some time to be sure of her decision, and then perform the procedure if she so chooses.

On the side, messing with people's personal decisions is NOT the way for anti-abortionist like myself to change people's views. like it or not, abortion is legal. Most anti-abortionists are Christians, and rather than posting pictires of aborted fetuses on billboards, I think it is better to remember that the Bible tells us NOT to judge individuals, because that is the job of God alone. Educating people the best you can about alternatives and the gravity of what an abortion is would be the best way to change things. Also, we must RESPECT the decisions of those who's mind we cannot change rather than judging them as "bad people".
 
tinkerbelle said:
What else would you say besides either:
1) i would preform the abortion
2) i would refer my patient to someone who would preform the abortion


you could also offer to send the patient to someone to counsel her so she is prepared for the horrific feelings afterwards
 
docjolly said:
I am very much against abortion. In my point of view, abortion takes away the opportunity for unborn children to live. In my opinion, it's nothing shy of murder. I don't think that I will ever be able to understand why we, as human beings, feel as though we have the right to take another's life away...No, I don't think I'll ever really understand...

As a future physician, I honestly struggle with an answer to the question about patients seeking abortions...

:thumbup: you're awesome!!
 
medic170 said:
I hope this does not turn into another flame war. The abortion issue can never be completely solved, there will always be people with opposing views.

Now, to the OP, I am going to give you the benfit of the doubt and assume you are not a Troll.

Someone said the ADCOMS want to see if you appreciate the shades of gray, and that is exactly right.

Some of my interviewers asked about a woman coming to me to request an abortion. Now, I personally do not believe in abortions. I gave an honest answer. I said I would not perform the abortion. However, I also said "it is not my place to judge this patient, and I would not. I said I would explain the alternatives to the patient, and then I would simply refer the patient to another doctor that wouild be willing to entertain the abortion option. I would even assist the patient in setting up the appointment" like it ir not, abortion is, at this time, legal. By answering the way I did, I maintain my own morals, I still helped the patient, I educated the patient about other options (like adoption) and helped the patient get set up with another doc so she could make her decision without my bias. Her decisdion will be between her, the doc, and God. I did my job and the patient will ultimatly get the care she wants, which I helped her with.

Conversely, for those who do believe in abortions, I think the best thing to do is still offer all the alternatives, tell the patient to take some time to be sure of her decision, and then perform the procedure if she so chooses.

On the side, messing with people's personal decisions is NOT the way for anti-abortionist like myself to change people's views. like it or not, abortion is legal. Most anti-abortionists are Christians, and rather than posting pictires of aborted fetuses on billboards, I think it is better to remember that the Bible tells us NOT to judge individuals, because that is the job of God alone. Educating people the best you can about alternatives and the gravity of what an abortion is would be the best way to change things. Also, we must RESPECT the decisions of those who's mind we cannot change rather than judging them as "bad people".

i pretty much responded in a similar manner when asked.

Your whole post was awesome! :thumbup:
 
Psycho Doctor said:
you could also offer to send the patient to someone to counsel her so she is prepared for the horrific feelings afterwards

Yeah, that's a good idea too :) Although you're assuming all women will feel badly after having an abortion, which is untrue. Some women feel like it is their only choice and that it needs to be done. They feel nothing but relief afterwards.
 
i thank everyone who responded to this thread... and , what is a troll.
 
Zomo33 said:
iwhat is a troll.

From SDN FAQ:

Trolling / Repeat Trolls

The term troll is a slang term used to describe a number of things, traditionally it refers to a person who posts items intended to incite controversy or conflict. An individual posting honestly-held but controversial opinions is welcome at SDN. However, trolls are not. A troll's primary incentive is the incitement of conflict. Trolls often resort to verbal abuse, making inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of other guests. Those guests that behave in this manner will be banned immediately and without notice. Banned trolls that return to the SDN Forums will be immediately banned again upon identification of their new account. Those who repeatedly return to troll will have their IP address blocked.
 
tinkerbelle said:
Yeah, that's a good idea too :) Although you're assuming all women will feel badly after having an abortion, which is untrue. Some women feel like it is their only choice and that it needs to be done. They feel nothing but relief afterwards.


Yes, I know but from what i've heard (and it's been a lot thru various organizations i've been involved with) many are devastated whether immediately or years later, especially if they had no counseling and weren't prepared for any emotional attachment or regret or mixed feelings; many wished someone had warned them.
 
Psycho Doctor said:
Yes, I know but from what i've heard (and it's been a lot thru various organizations i've been involved with) many are devastated whether immediately or years later, especially if they had no counseling and weren't prepared for any emotional attachment or regret or mixed feelings; many wished someone had warned them.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I know people who still haven't gotten over the baby they aborted 20+ years ago. It's really sad. You know how they have little support networks for people with breast cancer? They should have people who had abortions talk to women contemplating abortions. It might give women a better idea of what they are doing. My previous post was just pointing out that many women don't have any regrets and think having the abortion is the best thing they ever did. People might be offended if you suggest counseling :p
 
i had an abortion a few years ago. i felt very sad about it (and still do when i think about it now), but it was certainly the right decision for me. i have no regrets and no feeling of horror. in fact, what i do have is a deep gratitude for the availability of safe, respectfully provided abortions. i also have a lot of empathy for others going through that experience.

as a doc, i will certainly never push an abortion on anyone, and i would want to have a thoughtful conversation with any woman asking for one to make sure she's really clear about her options and comfortable about her choice. i plan to get trained to do abortions myself so i can offer them when appropriate.

two parts of my experience that interested and moved me:

- i had my abortion at planned parenthood. they did offer me counseling, during which they didn't push me to make any particular decision--i really felt they presented me with options. this counseling was standard for all patients, i think. i was incredibly impressed with the compassion, dedication, kindness, and professionalism of the staff, both during the counseling and during the actual abortion.

- i didn't tell a huge number of people about my abortion (and i want to stay anonymous here) but i found that when i did tell other women, an amazing number (3 out of 7) had abortion stories of their own. these included my mom as well as a good friend of mine who i would've thought would have told me that before. i was struck that each of these women was really at peace with her decision. none had made her decision lightly. two out of three had done some grieving, but over the loss of a potential child and not over her choice. i was also struck that abortion is an incredibly private topic. i'm not sure why i had never heard these stories before. i'm pretty sure it wasn't shame, but maybe fear of judgement?

i'm certain there are women out there who have deeply felt regrets-even horror-about having had abortions. but i can attest that there are some--perhaps even a majority?--who feel that abortion was a good and moral choice, even if a sad one. i do.

here is how i think about the whole "is-it-murder?" question: i feel very clear that i caused a potential human to die when i decided to have an abortion. however, i also feel very clear that it wasn't a person with any current or past self-awareness who could experience a desire to live. nor was it ever a person with the kind of social identity that most fetuses acquire as delievery nears--for examples, no one ever named my embryo or spent time imagining it taking its place in a family or dreaming about its future. my personal belief is that embryos or fetuses should be respected as potential people, not thought of as "clumps of tissue"; therefore, one should never have an abortion lightly (and CERTAINLY not as birth control). however, i don't think killing them is murder when one can be certain they have no self-awareness and when they haven't acquired a social identity.

p.s. i like "safe, legal, and rare"
 
tinkerbelle said:
What else would you say besides either:
1) i would preform the abortion
2) i would refer my patient to someone who would preform the abortion


3) My religious and/or moral beliefs do not allow me to either perform, refer for, or in any way assist you in obtaining an elective abortion. In fact, most states, if not all, have a "conscience clause" in their laws which allows physicians, without legal jeapordy, to opt out of any involvement whatsoever with abortion. Additionally, at many public hospitals, it is against hospital policy and state law to discuss elective abortion with a patient.

The OP is a troll. I guarantee my comments are going to generate a lot of hissy fits and self-righteous posturing from our liberal friends on SDN who can not accept first that a "conscience clause" exists and second that a physician is allowed to exercise his personal morality.
 
Panda Bear said:
3) My religious and/or moral beliefs do not allow me to either perform, refer for, or in any way assist you in obtaining an elective abortion. In fact, most states, if not all, have a "conscience clause" in their laws which allows physicians, without legal jeapordy, to opt out of any involvement whatsoever with abortion. Additionally, at many public hospitals, it is against hospital policy and state law to discuss elective abortion with a patient.

The OP is a troll. I guarantee my comments are going to generate a lot of hissy fits and self-righteous posturing from our liberal friends on SDN who can not accept first that a "conscience clause" exists and second that a physician is allowed to exercise his personal morality.

Thank you Panda Bear. I am sickened by the thought that the law could force you to refer a woman to a willing baby-killer. This really works against my consience. Good to know that we have not yet descended to that level.
 
anonymous1 said:
i had an abortion a few years ago. i felt very sad about it (and still do when i think about it now), but it was certainly the right decision for me. i have no regrets and no feeling of horror. in fact, what i do have is a deep gratitude for the availability of safe, respectfully provided abortions. i also have a lot of empathy for others going through that experience.

as a doc, i will certainly never push an abortion on anyone, and i would want to have a thoughtful conversation with any woman asking for one to make sure she's really clear about her options and comfortable about her choice. i plan to get trained to do abortions myself so i can offer them when appropriate.

two parts of my experience that interested and moved me:

- i had my abortion at planned parenthood. they did offer me counseling, during which they didn't push me to make any particular decision--i really felt they presented me with options. this counseling was standard for all patients, i think. i was incredibly impressed with the compassion, dedication, kindness, and professionalism of the staff, both during the counseling and during the actual abortion.

- i didn't tell a huge number of people about my abortion (and i want to stay anonymous here) but i found that when i did tell other women, an amazing number (3 out of 7) had abortion stories of their own. these included my mom as well as a good friend of mine who i would've thought would have told me that before. i was struck that each of these women was really at peace with her decision. none had made her decision lightly. two out of three had done some grieving, but over the loss of a potential child and not over her choice. i was also struck that abortion is an incredibly private topic. i'm not sure why i had never heard these stories before. i'm pretty sure it wasn't shame, but maybe fear of judgement?

i'm certain there are women out there who have deeply felt regrets-even horror-about having had abortions. but i can attest that there are some--perhaps even a majority?--who feel that abortion was a good and moral choice, even if a sad one. i do.

here is how i think about the whole "is-it-murder?" question: i feel very clear that i caused a potential human to die when i decided to have an abortion. however, i also feel very clear that it wasn't a person with any current or past self-awareness who could experience a desire to live. nor was it ever a person with the kind of social identity that most fetuses acquire as delievery nears--for examples, no one ever named my embryo or spent time imagining it taking its place in a family or dreaming about its future. my personal belief is that embryos or fetuses should be respected as potential people, not thought of as "clumps of tissue"; therefore, one should never have an abortion lightly (and CERTAINLY not as birth control). however, i don't think killing them is murder when one can be certain they have no self-awareness and when they haven't acquired a social identity.

p.s. i like "safe, legal, and rare"

Thank you anonymous. I am really against abortion, regardless of circumstances, but I certainly respect you very much for discussing it on this forum, albeit anonymously. It is, no doubt, a difficult thing to discuss, and I respect you for your courage. I, too, have noticed that it is a taboo topic. What is particularly surprising to me is when married people do it.
 
Panda Bear said:
Additionally, at many public hospitals, it is against hospital policy and state law to discuss elective abortion with a patient.

What the rational behind that?
 
mercaptovizadeh said:
Thank you Panda Bear. I am sickened by the thought that the law could force you to refer a woman to a willing baby-killer. This really works against my consience. Good to know that we have not yet descended to that level.

Oh wow. I thought you were being sarcastic until i read your second post :p Although I think you are doing your patients a disservice by not informing them of all thier legal options, I can understand how people who are against abortion woudl want nothing to do with it.

I just don't understand why doctors who would either perform an abortion or who would be willing to give a referal would not be allowed to do so in a public hospital(according to panda's post).

P.S. Thanks for posting your story anonymous :)
 
mercaptovizadeh said:
Thank you anonymous. I am really against abortion, regardless of circumstances, but I certainly respect you very much for discussing it on this forum, albeit anonymously. It is, no doubt, a difficult thing to discuss, and I respect you for your courage. I, too, have noticed that it is a taboo topic. What is particularly surprising to me is when married people do it.

i very much appreciate your respect and your not criticizing me, despite your own views.

i feel the need to be anonymous here partly because there is so much strong feeling about abortion. i didn't want to risk getting a lot of angry or abusive pm's. also, it is a very personal thing. i think it's useful in these rather abstract debates to be able to pull in real experiences to supplement the theories and hearsay, but i didn't want to over-share with a bunch of acquaintances using my usual login name. as i said before, i am sad about it. however, it's not difficult to discuss in the sense that it is a few years behind me, i don't feel ambivalent or unresolved, and it matters a lot to me to be able to have true dialogue about this issue.

are you against abortion in cases where the health of the mother is at risk? i'm guessing you are (thus "regardless of circumstances"). how do you think about balancing the mom's needs with the pre-baby's?

one of the things i've learned about abortion since i had mine is that married women actually account for a sizeable percentage of women who seek abortions. it surprised me, too. but pregnant women have all kinds of reasons for not wanting to have babies.
 
Psycho Doctor said:
I'm curious as to what you said.

I told them that I would refer this person to an abortion doctor but also let them know that there are other options besides abortion.
 
tinkerbelle said:
What the rational behind that?

Because the majority of voters sent enough pro-life legislators to their state houses to either effect new policy or prevent old laws from being changed. The rationale is that the taxpayers and voters of my state, for example, don't want state money spent on a practice which many consider to be morally repugnant, neither do they want state employees who work for them encouraging the practice.

Simple as that. You can argue it until you're blue in the face but in my state, the voters have spoken.

The reasons for a conscience clause should be obvious even to the most virulently pro-abortion people.

By the way, elective abortion is not illegal in Louisiana.
 
anonymous1 said:
here is how i think about the whole "is-it-murder?" question: i feel very clear that i caused a potential human to die when i decided to have an abortion. however, i also feel very clear that it wasn't a person with any current or past self-awareness who could experience a desire to live. nor was it ever a person with the kind of social identity that most fetuses acquire as delievery nears--for examples, no one ever named my embryo or spent time imagining it taking its place in a family or dreaming about its future. my personal belief is that embryos or fetuses should be respected as potential people, not thought of as "clumps of tissue"; therefore, one should never have an abortion lightly (and CERTAINLY not as birth control). however, i don't think killing them is murder when one can be certain they have no self-awareness and when they haven't acquired a social identity.

p.s. i like "safe, legal, and rare"

Thanks so much for sharing your story. I find it very illuminating to hear the perspectives of people who've had direct experience with subjects under discussion. I myself am pro-choice, and found your statement above to be similar to my own perspective on this issue.

I also find it interesting that married women are such a large percentage of women seeking abortions. I think there could be a few reasons for this. One, perhaps the child is not their husband's. Two, they might have a much harder time putting their baby up for adoption. Imagine the social stigma if you already have two children, and you go through a very public pregnancy (your in-laws, relatives, and colleagues see you're pregnant) and then you give up the child to adoption. You'd be the gossip of the town. There's this idea that if you're married you can't NOT be able to raise a child... when in fact because of money, time constraints, and other reasons, married people are under lots of pressure and might have a hard time raising additional children. Much easier and much more private to have an abortion. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that this might be the way it is.
 
If I had to answer this question in an interview or what not I would have to say that I do not think abortion is right, for my religious views. Sure there are great circumstances to where there might be an exception - but I am not getting into that much detail. However, if it came to my patients or even a friend, I would be in total support of their choice, for the pure and simple reason that just because I hold these beliefs for myself - who am I to push my beliefs on other people? Not everyone is my religion, or has the same views.

I just think that I can hold these beliefs for myself and only myself, and not push my beliefs on other people, they have their own. This way of thinking really helps me to see that if I was put in this situation as a physician, I would have a much easier dealing with it.
 
Jezzielin said:
If I had to answer this question in an interview or what not I would have to say that I do not think abortion is right, for my religious views. Sure there are great circumstances to where there might be an exception - but I am not getting into that much detail. However, if it came to my patients or even a friend, I would be in total support of their choice, for the pure and simple reason that just because I hold these beliefs for myself - who am I to push my beliefs on other people? Not everyone is my religion, or has the same views.

I just think that I can hold these beliefs for myself and only myself, and not push my beliefs on other people, they have their own. This way of thinking really helps me to see that if I was put in this situation as a physician, I would have a much easier dealing with it.

Let me gently suggest that occasionally it is acceptable to impose your religious beliefs on others. Certainly whether the unwashed armies of the unconverted eat meat on Friday is of little concern to me. And I'm leery of trying to legislate anything done by consenting adults behind closed doors. But for the big moral issues, if you aren't willing to champion your faith then why bother holding it?

In other words, since Islam is against abortion, if your going to be a Moslem then even if you occasionally enjoy a pork BBQ sandwhich you should at least be Moslem enough to push your beliefs on abortion (peacefully) on other people. As a pro-life physician this should involve at a minimum opting out of any involvement with elective abortion, even encouragement or "non-judgementalism."

Come to think of it, people who insist that a pro-life doctor refer them for an abortion are actually trying to push their moral beliefs on the doctor.

If you really believe in an absolute God who holds man to an absolute standard of morality, then to say, "It's wrong for me but OK for you" is a contradiction." See my point? If you're more afraid of offending your friends then offending your diety I suggest that your religious beliefs are more a form of personal morality than religion.
 
Besides, as the OP troll knows, questions about abortion are almost never asked during an interview. It's like asking an applicant if they are a Republican or a Democrat. It's just not done.

I also want to point out that most elective abortions are carried out at small clinics. It is a rare hospital that provides elective abortions so you can, at most medical schools (including mine), go through an entire OB-Gyn rotation without being confronted with this issue.

Elective abortion is a very, very, small part of OB-Gyn and is usually consigned to "butchers for hire" who specialize in nothing else but this highly lucrative practice.

There are, also, plenty of stridently pro-life OB-Gyns who will have nothing to do with elective abortions.

Don't worry. There are plenty of conservative physicians. If you are pro-life you will have plenty of company.
 
And, if I may add one more thing to this highly interesting topic, you will encounter very few physicians in medical school who are so stridently pro-choice that the idea of elective abortions doesn't bother them. Even nominally pro-choice physicians are more likely to try to talk a woman out of having an abortion than to automatically refer them to an abortion provider.

The idea of elective abortion bothers almost everybody. It is not a "free-for-all" where every liberal Physician is gung ho to abort a baby. Keep this in mind when you interview. Part of being a physician is to have a moral center. Almost no one will fault you if your moral center places you in a postion where you refuse to condone by silence a practice which you consider immoral. And if they do, **** 'em. I guess you just won't hit it off with that particular interviewer.

Again, we surely don't want to judge our patients or prosyletize but being true to your faith is not the same as passing jusdgement on somebody else.
 
First off, I want to commend the population of SDN for making it through two whole pages of this thread without starting a flame war, and I have to say this is the most calm and well-mannered discussion on abortion I think I've ever seen on here. With this in mind, I would like to calmly bring up a few other points to add, and see if I can get some ideas. I am trying to ask or pose these in a non-loaded or non-leading fashion, so here goes...

If a woman's life is in danger during pregnancy, haven't we as a culture determined that her health comes before that of any baby, no matter what, thereby implying that, if the baby is a "person" or has rights and protections, they are not on the same par as a full grown woman....Basically, don't we already acknowledge that an unborn or nearly born baby is NOT the same as a person? Ok, ok, some of my views came out in that question....

Second, it has been discussed on here a little and in previous threads, but what do you feel about the idea that, beliefsa aside, if you are a family practitioner and one of your patients comes to you, dead set on abortion, you sort of are obligated to refer them to a competent professional? Arguments in the past have said that, while most people have a yellow pages, there are some that rely on their FP as the sole source of medical info, and if you refrain from a referral her health could be in serious jeopardy. This is obviously an extreme example, but how do you feel about it?

Thanks for your time, and try not to get too riled up... :)
 
Panda Bear said:
Besides, as the OP troll knows, questions about abortion are almost never asked during an interview. It's like asking an applicant if they are a Republican or a Democrat. It's just not done.

.

Actually, I was asked this type of question at roughly at least half of my interviews. Also, I was even asked if I was conservative or liberal at one interview. So, to say it's just not done is not really correct. It may or may not be right, but it is done.
 
I think its a pretty unfair question to be asked during the interview, but if a patient came to me requesting an abortion, I'd probably not perform it because I am against abortions. However, as a doctor, I'd feel obligated to refer the patient to a doctor who would perform the abortion. I still think its sad that some people want an abortion because they do not want a child, many people would be willing to adopt a baby. But no matter what I would not attempt to impose my views concerning abortion on a patient. Also thanks for sharing your story anonymous.
 
Aristotle said:
I think its a pretty unfair question to be asked during the interview, but if a patient came to me requesting an abortion, I'd probably not perform it because I am against abortions. However, as a doctor, I'd feel obligated to refer the patient to a doctor who would perform the abortion. I still think its sad that some people want an abortion because they do not want a child, many people would be willing to adopt a baby. But no matter what I would not attempt to impose my views concerning abortion on a patient. Also thanks for sharing your story anonymous.

A few points:

1) I am stunned that many of you are asked about abortion during an interview. Maybe if you were interviewing for an OB-Gyn residency this line of questioning would be appropriate but I think it is highly inappropriate for a medical school admission interview. As is, questions about abortion put unfair pressure on an applicant because, unless he is an old dog like me who is confident enough in his beliefs to speak candidly on all subjects, the supposition on the part of the applicant is that if he answers "wrong" he will decrease his chances of acceptance. Abortion is too divisive a subject for a "get to know you" interview.

2) Once more with feeling, refusing to take part in an activity for moral reasons (and referring for an abortion is a form of taking part) is not the same as "imposing your views" on somebody else. If a mugger, for example, asks me to hold a gun on somebody while he searches their pockets I am not "imposing my views" on the mugger if I refuse. In fact, it is the mugger (and the patient who insists that I help her obtain an elective-abortion) who is imposing thier views on me.

This is a hard concept for the non-religious to understand because there is a tendency on their part, while most respect religion, to view it as just another malleable belief which can be molded to serve the particular view of social justice which is fashionable at the time. The absolute faith of many of us perplexes the non-religious who wonder why we are so unreasonable. Like I said earlier, if you believe that elective abortion is a sin against God then no amount of secular pressure is going to convince you otherwise.

Sorry.

3) Can one of you folks please tell me the indications for elective abortion? Spare yourself. Thie indication is "convenience of the mother," usually because a baby will severely effect her current lifestyle in an undesirable way.

Now, I axe you: Is this a legitimate indication for a medical procedure? While some procedures are done for convenience's sake let's suppose that a healthy, 36-year-old woman with no family history of cancer asked you to perform a TAH/BSO becasue she was tired of waiting for menopause. You could certainly perform the procedure safely but nobody would fault you if you refused.

Or let's suppose somebody asks you to surgically alter them to look like a tiger. (I saw it on the Discovery Channel) I don't think you have to refer the guy to another plastic surgeon if you disapprove.

In other words, preganancy is not a disease. It requires no cure. Even you atheists who find the practice disgusting have an "out."
 
Panda Bear, I've already had this discussion with you a long time ago (re: the abundance of elective procedures in medical care, making this argument against abortion irrelevant; see http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=43682&highlight=abortion to refresh your memory). Why are you still bringing up the same arguments? Just let this thread die. No one is going to say anything that hasn't already been said a million times before. I've come to realize the sheer pointlessness of threads like this for provoking any worthwhile discussion; no one changes their views or learns anything new.
 
Thanks for posting the the link. I also think the "abortion is an elective procedure" argument is pretty ridiculous, as so many things in medicine are elective these days. Even prescribing anti-psychotics could be seen as "elective", since they may not be absolutely necessary for some patients to live and function, even if they do improve their quality of lives. And in fact, there are some psychiatrists who are opposed to their use. Yet I wouldn't say it's right for a shrink to not even mention their existence because he is morally opposed to them. In any case, I agree, these discussions are pretty useless, and unlikely to change anyone's opinion on anything.
 
Mistress S said:
Panda Bear, I've already had this discussion with you a long time ago (re: the abundance of elective procedures in medical care, making this argument against abortion irrelevant; see http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=43682&highlight=abortion to refresh your memory). Why are you still bringing up the same arguments? Just let this thread die. No one is going to say anything that hasn't already been said a million times before. I've come to realize the sheer pointlessness of threads like this for provoking any worthwhile discussion; no one changes their views or learns anything new.


I disagree. I'll wager that most if not all of the impressionable pre-meds who frequent this forum have never heard of their state's "conscience clause." I believe that many of them buy into the erroneous notion that they are professionally and legally obligated to refer a woman for an abortion even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Therefore, while I usually avoid abortion threads with the same diligence I apply to ignoring "DO vs MD" threads, I occasionally think it is useful to spread the truth about a physician's non-existant duty to refer a woman for an elective abortion.

Pro-choice or pro-life, agree or disagree with the law, it is the law and it is the pro-choice physician in a pubic hospital in Louisiana who is breaking the law and acting unethically if he refers a woman for an elective abortion. His professionalism is shoddy and it is his license which is in jeapordy, not mine.

This kind of sticks in many of your craws but there it is.

Additionally, I believe that many of our young friends don't realize that the country is full of Catholic hospitals where even birth control may not be discussed as a matter of hospital policy, much less elective abortion. Finally, it is not commonly known that there are extensive networks of pro-life OB-Gyns who refuse to have anythingto do with elective abortion.

I hope you will note that I am not trying to start a debate on whether abortion is or isn't immoral because as you observe, this is usually pointless. Instead, I am trying to convince some of our liberal and ostensibly open-minded and tolerant friends that they need to respect the moral, cultural, and religious beliefs of people who are different from them. (In the name of diversity and all that other bullcrap I hear so much about.)

I am also twisting the knife a little just because in this case, I am absolutely right about what I am telling you and people who insist that physicians have a legal obligation to refer for elective abortion are absolutely wrong. It is not often that I am so right and others are so wrong so I enjoy those moments when they come along. I'm only human.

Just a side note, I was kind of pulling your leg. Patient "convenience" is a poor indication for any procedure. I don't think any physician has ever been successfully sued for not performing an elective abortion. I could be wrong, of course, but if it happens it is certainly a rare event that I believe would require the plaintiff to prove breach of standard of care, negligence, and a harm that resulted from the negligence. Seems to me this would be a stretch for most juries, especially in my state.

I know people sue when elective abortions go awry.

I also think this "I'd Refuse But Tearfully Refer Her to a Physician Who Would" interview gambit is a mealy-mouthed, post-modern, phoney baloney, good time rock and roll, plastic bananna cop-out. By God, if you're pro-life, have the courage of your convictions to say so. If you're pro-choice then do likewise.

I know, you all are personally against abortion but don't want to impose your views. Great. Fine. So please tell me why you are personally against abortion? Be specific. What is it about it that disgusts you just enough where you won't scrape the products of conception out yourself but not enough where you won't refer to someone who will?

See, I don't understand why many who are pro-choice are so friggin' squeamish about scraping out a lifeless, souless, blob of inanimate matter.

At least the rabid, foam at the mouth pro-choice people who make a religion of abortion are intellectually consistent when they state that it is not a baby until its feet scrape the labia major on the way out.
 
I know it's futile discussing things like this on SDN, but I just wanted to seek clarification on some of your viewpoints.

Panda Bear said:
Pro-choice or pro-life, agree or disagree with the law, it is the law and it is the pro-choice physician in a pubic hospital in Louisiana who is breaking the law and acting unethically if he refers a woman for an elective abortion. His professionalism is shoddy and it is his license which is in jeapordy, not mine.

You mean it is illegal for ANY physician to refer a woman for an abortion if he works in a public hospital in Louisiana? I'm not doubting you, I just wanted to make sure I understood you right. I was previously under the impression that the law simply allowed pro-life physicians in LA to refuse to refer a woman for an abortion.


Panda Bear said:
Just a side note, I was kind of pulling your leg. Patient "convenience" is a poor indication for any procedure.

Isn't this basically the indication for a lot of cosmetic surgery / derm procedures? I'm assuming you don't agree with these procedures then, either, or with other procedures that improve quality of life for patients but aren't necessary to continue living.


Panda Bear said:
What is it about it that disgusts you just enough where you won't scrape the products of conception out yourself but not enough where you won't refer to someone who will?

Some things are disgusting, but not necessarily immoral. I don't want to do colonoscopies or bury dead bodies for a living, (though I'll refer anyone to people who do), but I don't think these actions are immoral.

Panda Bear said:
See, I don't understand why many who are pro-choice are so friggin' squeamish about scraping out a lifeless, souless, blob of inanimate matter.

At least the rabid, foam at the mouth pro-choice people who make a religion of abortion are intellectually consistent when they state that it is not a baby until its feet scrape the labia major on the way out.

Here's the usual tendency to characterize those with opposing viewpoints as extremists. It's possible to regard the fetus as neither a full person nor a "lifeless, souless, blob of inanimate matter". Being pro-choice doesn't mean you're either a cowardly pro-lifer-in-the-closet or you think fetuses are no different from rocks. Fetuses are alive, just like cows and ducks are. I just don't happen to think they are fully morally equivalent to persons. Some of the earlier posts in this thread explain this point of view more eloquently than I can (i.e., see anonymous1). And certainly, textbooks on bioethics can discuss both sides of the issue much better than I can.
 
I just re-read some of your earlier posts, panda, which clarified the Louisiana situation. Thanks for providing that information.
 
leechy said:
I just re-read some of your earlier posts, panda, which clarified the Louisiana situation. Thanks for providing that information.

No problem. I reiterate that elective abortion is not illegal in Louisiana. But I think you understand how the true legal situation for pro-life health care providers is not well understand. The "duty to refer" is an urban myth. About the only folks who think there should be a "duty to refer" are our friends at the AMA, an organization which has no legal standing, is unable to compel compliance in any aspect of medical practice, and has no enforcement or punitive power over its membership.

The AMA are also anti-gun which puts them at odds with a whole bunch of physicians here in Louisiana but that is a topic for another post.

So if I understand you correctly, the only thing keeping you from performing abortions is the same thing that kept me from being a podiatrist, namely the "gross out" factor. In other words, neither nasty, disgusting feet nor nasty, goopy products of conception carry any moral baggage whatsoever and your objection to abortion are the same as my objection to treating ingrown toenails.

On another topic, when do the products of conception actually become "morally equivalent" to a person? Isn't this the 64 thousand dollar question? Would you draw the line at the so-called "partial birth" abortions and if so why? Maybe we should draw the line at 24 weeks gestational age when a fetus can survive (albeit with a lot of medical support) outside the womb.

I find that a lot of the so-called "eloquent" debate about abortion is merely sophistry and an attempt to muddy the waters. Adoption, unhappy children, woman's reproductive rights and the whole cargo of mud are irrelevant until the fundamental issue of the "moral equivalence to a person" of a fetus is resolved.

If a person believes that the products of conception are just tissue he might as well just say so. This gives him a firm, intellectually consistent position from which to argue without forcing him to come up with a zany formula where a fetus is only 3/5 of a person until, say, 32 weeks gestational age at which point it crosses the 7/8 mark becoming morally equivalent enough where it is a crime and a forty dollar fine in Arkansas to kill it.

For my part, as a religious man who believes in the God, the soul, Satan, heaven, and hell I confess that I don't know when a fetus becomes a person. All I know is that somewhere between conception and birth it becomes a child and because it is impossible to know when God breathes a soul into a child I am not willing to guess wrong.

If you don't believe in God that's all right too. Just say so.
 
Scientologists don't believe in using any psychiatric medications at all, including prozac, etc. for religious reasons. Yet, somehow I don't think a "conscience clause" would bail them out in court if they refused to refer their patients w/MDD to a doctor who would prescribe them, and then the patient committed suicide.
 
zpdoc said:
Scientologists don't believe in using any psychiatric medications at all, including prozac, etc. for religious reasons. Yet, somehow I don't think a "conscience clause" would bail them out in court if they refused to refer their patients w/MDD to a doctor who would prescribe them, and then the patient committed suicide.

Sure. But depression is a disease which requires treatment while pregnancy is not. A more appropriate analogy would be a patient with Body Dismorphic Syndrome who's plastic surgeon refused to perform any more surgeries and refused to refer the patient to a more compliant, less ethical doctor. In this case, the surgeon's conscience would prohibit him from enabling the patient to obtain more potentially harmful surgieries when it is his judgement that she needs psychiatric counseling more than a twelfth boob job. Would a jury convict the doctor if the patient commited suicide because of poor body image?

A physician is not just a black box into which the patients symptoms are keyed and out of which comes a diagnosis and a treatment plan. Neither is medicine a cult in the service of which a physician must sacrifice personal morality.

Now, you have to realize that even though I am a religious man I am not nearly the absolutist you may imagine. As I have mentioned before, I tend to tread gently around areas of personal and sexual morality, most of which is none of my business. I would not dream of prosyletizing my patients because this would be highly inappropriate and an abuse of the doctor/patient relationship.

On the other hand, if a patient asks me my opinion about the morality of some aspect of life as they often do I am not shy about giving my tactfully presented but non-wishy-washy opinion. (I'm 41, My hair is starting to turn gray and I never get treated like a medical student by patients, many of whom think I am in charge of the department where I am rotating) I have been asked about abortion and I have said to the patient that even discussing it as an option was very much against my Christian beliefs. Amazingly, the sky did not fall, the Four Horsemen did not rampage, cats did not sleep with dogs, and the world of medicine continued to turn.

See my point? Not prescribing medicine for religious reasons is just silly and I think we can all agree on that. We would legitimately call this viewpoint extremism. Being against abortion on the other hand is not an extremist position and neither is not wanting to participate in the practice. Naturally if you don't believe in the God or at least don't believe that He sets a moral standard for us to follow you consider any appeal to religion to be invalid. Fine. Great. But I think close to, what, 78 percent of Americans believe in God so by definition religious beliefs are in the mainstream.

I would also add that it is fairly easy to practice medicine without taking part in the practice of elective abortion. In most specialties the issue will never even come up. It is extremely difficult to practice medicine if you are against the use of medicine. This is the difference between "legitimate" (and boy do I use that term cautiously) morality and extremism. There is a difference but like many things, I can't exactly define what is extreme even though I (and you) know it when I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top