doesn't this violate the hippocratic oath? the "right of conscience" rule...

[cpants]

Amen Miami_med. I already stated that I am pro-choice, but I do have a problem with imposing morality on physicians. I believe that we are individuals first, professionals second. Somehow my beliefs are equated to hating women.

Jurassicpark, shriller does not equal more convincing. I'm sorry you had to take the discussion to a nasty place. The rights to have an abortion and take birth control pills which we enjoy in this country do not compel individual physicians/pharmacists to provide those treatments. The reproductive issue is clearly one which you are emotional about. Maybe a different example would be less offensive to you.

Take circumcision. Please do not respond with a defense of circumcision, as this is not my personal belief, merely an example for argument's sake. A physician might believe this perfectly legal practice to be an immoral mutilation of a child's genitalia. In fact, many physicians do feel this way. Yet this is a procedure which many parents desire for their neonates. I don't believe that this physician should be forced by law or professional obligation to provide this service, or even to refer to a different provider, essentially facilitating the parents' mutilation of the child. This would hold true regardless of the physical location of the provider. Rural Montana or suburban NJ, we enjoy the same rights as human beings, Americans, and physicians. If you morally object to something, you have a right to not participate in any way.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Regnvejr]

Repeatedly stating that I am wrong does not make me wrong. The argument is circular. If a physician doesn't provide a service, it is immediately outside the scope of practice of the physician by definition.

False. If you are an infectious disease specialist and you refuse to treat HIV, you have a duty to refer. If you are an OB/GYN who does not provide abortions, then you have a duty to refer. Check out the lawyer sites, they are eager to sue on behalf of those who the moral objectors refused to refer elsewhere. Check out "duty to refer" on Pubmed or Google. You denying that reality doesn't change the reality, it merely lets somebody sue the pants off you and let you lose your license and credentials.

I won't say it again, but I never said that physicians should have the right to say that abortion doesn't exist

Never said that you did.

I simply said that they should have the right to not provide or refer for the service.

And again, as you can read in countless analyzes if you do the above-mentioned search, you will see that society and the law see physicians and other providers as being in a special category of trust, where we are expected to give the patient full disclosure so they can make an informed consented decision about their own health care. You NOT seeing this is disturbing.

the autonomy of my colleagues whose personal beliefs about the way they want to practice medicine I hold to be equally dear to your own.

Physicians can practice any way they want. They can not withhold information, such as other providers that may provide the service they themselves do not feel comfortable providing, ie. there is a duty to refer.

I don't believe that law=morality or ethics.

Rather, morality and ethics do not trump the law. You might not like it, but it is reality. DO that search. Do you want to make a lawyer rich from commission some day?

As has been said before, and as you will read in the articles and sources if you do that search, the advice is that if there are areas where you have moral objection to some treatments, the best you can do is to stay out of that field. If you are in it, then you have the duty to refer regardless.

Repeatedly stating that it does doesn't change the fact. Even if it did, I'm also not aware of any case in which someone lost a medical license for not referring a patient for an abortion.

Check the legal firm sites where they tell prospective clients how they have been able to win for their clients when referral was not made.

I would be interested to hear about it if you've got one. I'm also not sure that everyone would agree with you that this is in fact a standard of care.

It is no more about whether people "agree" than it matters whether people "agree" with scientific or legal standards. These exist independent on whether people agree with them.

Perhaps in your state of Wyoming, the dominant culture is highly opposed to abortion. Where I live, it is the opposite. You're far more likely to be villified for not supporting abortion here. There is no reason why there has to be a national sameness of all healthcare provision just as there is no sameness in all national culture.

It is not about sameness, nor is it about having to perform procedures. It is about that if a physician does not want to perform a reasonable and legal procedure, then that physician has a DUTY to refer to others without such problems.

 

[Regnvejr]

..I don't believe that this physician should be forced by law or professional obligation to provide this service, or even to refer to a different provider...

Your belief aside, the law is clear that there is a duty to refer. It has been there for many generations. Do the check on Google for the lawyer sites and Pubmed for the medical documentation of this.

 

[Miami_med]

It is no more about whether people "agree" than it matters whether people "agree" with scientific or legal standards. These exist independent on whether people agree with them.

Where exactly does this standard come from? Is there a magic book of standards? The science of an elective abortion hasn't changed much in the last 40 years, but the law certainly has. Something being legal certainly doesn't make it the standard of care. It is legal to prescribe penicillin for TB, but it isn't the standard of care by anyone's defnition. The only real definition of "standard of care," if one can truly exist (I personally think that this concept is more of a boon for trial lawyers than an actual medical term), is something to which there is a very strong professional concensus on the best way to do something. The very fact that this argument is even taking place on this forum shows that this is really not the case with elective abortion. We don't see these types of arguments about whether anti-retroviral therapy is a good idea for HIV patients.

Completely independent of the physician autonomy argument, which is the one that I'm sticking with, there are a number of issues with trying to label abortion as a medical standard. This isn't like treating HIV, because pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy rarely kills you. People intentionally get pregnant sometimes, while almost no one intentionally gets HIV. The concept of whether one should terminate a pregnancy is CLEARLY a subjective moral point. If there were a comparison, it would probably be to cosmetic surgery. If a woman is unhappy with her natural breasts, it is legal to change them. In this respect it is legal to alter a natural state, but a breast augmentation is clearly not a medical "standard of care," by any definition. Many physician's disagree with these procedures. Many physicians don't refer for these, and many aren't even connected to a cosmetic surgeon. This isn't a case of someone witholding life saving information. If a physician tells a patient, "We do not offer or refer for abortions here, you'll have to go elsewhere," it is really no different than saying, "we don't offer or refer for breast augmentation here, you'll have to go elsewhere." I mean, isn't breast augmentation about patient autonomy too?


P.S. You still haven't quoted me a case where someone lost a lawsuit for failure to refer for an abortion. Lawyers will offer to sue over anything to bring you in the door, but I've never seen anyone lose a lawsuit over this issue. If I recall correctly, the closest thing was a California case in which a woman sued for failure to fill a prescription for a legally prescribed morning after pill. I know that it lost in CA, but lost track as to whether it ever went to appeal. It still didn't apply to referrals.

 

[melanoleuca]

Physicians can practice any way they want. They can not withhold information, such as other providers that may provide the service they themselves do not feel comfortable providing, ie. there is a duty to refer.
Rather, morality and ethics do not trump the law. You might not like it, but it is reality. DO that search. Do you want to make a lawyer rich from commission some day?

Most states specifically exempt physicians from referring for abortions and provide protection from legal jeopardy for doing so. There is no duty to refer and I don't know where you get your information. The AMA may have a policy on this but they are nothing more than a lobbying group and have no legislative or executive power over anyone.

To successfully sue a doctor, you have to prove that 1) A doctor patient relationship existed 2) There was a beach of a reasonable standard of care 3) Some measurable damage was caused by the error or action and and 4) The damages have to be documented. Since a normal pregnancy is not a disease and requires no treatment, successfully suing a non-referring doctor for not referring would be incredibly difficult. It's not like you refused to refer a patient who had an ectopic pregnancy.

Additionally, despite what you have heard, most malpractice suits that go to trial, and I mean most, are won by the defense. This kind of ridiculous suit would probably never make it to trial and would probably have no takers in the legal profession.

For my part, I would gladly be sued for something like that. I am very active in the pro-life movement and I have no doubt that we could bring to bear a huge amount of legal help defending this kind of thing. It would make a great test case.

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 40, § 1299.31.
No . . . person or corporation shall be held civilly . . . liable, discriminated against, . . . or in any way prejudiced or damaged because of his refusal for any reason to recommend, counsel, perform, assist with or accommodate an abortion.


Maryland Statutes
§ 20-214.
Health - General
(a) (1) A person may not be required to perform or participate in, or refer to any source for, any medical procedure that results in artificial insemination, sterilization, or termination of pregnancy.
(2) The refusal of a person to perform or participate in, or refer to a source for, these medical procedures may not be a basis for:
(i) Civil liability to another person; or
(ii) Disciplinary or other recriminatory action against the person

Etc.

http://www.consciencelaws.org/conscience-laws-usa/conscience-laws-usa-03.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPHS.pdf

 

[cpants]

Your belief aside, the law is clear that there is a duty to refer. It has been there for many generations. Do the check on Google for the lawyer sites and Pubmed for the medical documentation of this.

The fact that lawyers are willing to sue for something does not make it illegal. Lawyers are willing to sue teachers who give a kid a D in a class. Doctors are ripe targets to sue for any reason valid or not. Even with a spurious law suit, the patient and the lawyer are likely to get a fat settlement. Unfortunately, it's just not worth the doctor's time and money to defend the case. Nor do opinions in medical journals make something illegal. Show me where, in the LAW, it says that doctors are required to refer for abortion.

BTW the duty to refer that most of those lawyer sites are talking about is more about physicians practicing outside the scope of their knowledge. For example, a gastroenterologist unsuccessfully attempting to manage a patient's glaucoma without referring appropriately to an ophthalmologist.

 

[melanoleuca]

Your belief aside, the law is clear that there is a duty to refer. It has been there for many generations. Do the check on Google for the lawyer sites and Pubmed for the medical documentation of this.

This is absolutely not true in regard to elective abortions. Not in the slightest. There is no duty to refer for an elective abortion and "many generations" ago you would probably have been thrown in jail for performing one.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. In my state, I have the perfect right to refuse to as much as mention abortion to a patient and in no way can a malpractice suit be brought against me for doing so.

46 states have laws that explicitly protect physicians from any legal or professional consequences from refusing to participate, by direct involvement or referral, in abortions. You can argue all you want about it and work yourself into a lather but you are wrong about the law and I am happy for the chance to educate you before you professionally find yourself in an indefensible position. You may now stop spreading false information.

Here is and example of the law in Michigan, for example:

333.20183 Abortion ; refusal to give advice; refusal to participate in; immunity. [M.S.A. 14.15(20183)]
Sec. 20183. (1) A physician who informs a patient that he or she refuses to give advice concerning, or participate in, an abortion is not liable to the hospital, clinic, institution, teaching institution, health facility, or patient for the refusal.

(2) A civil action for negligence or malpractice or a disciplinary or discriminatory action may not be maintained against a person refusing to give advice as to, or participating in, an abortion based on the refusal. History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978

 

[melanoleuca]

Weldon Amendment [Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209]
The Weldon Amendment, originally adopted as section 508(d) of the Labor-HHS Division (Division F) of the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 108-447 (Dec. 8, 2004), has been readopted (or incorporated by reference) in each subsequent HHS appropriations act. [Title V of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-149, § 508(d), 119 Stat. 2833, 2879-80; Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2007, P.L 110-5 §2, 121 stat 8, 9;Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209]
The Weldon Amendment provides that “[n]one of the funds made available under this Act [making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education] may be made available to a Federal Agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” It also defines “health care entity” to include “an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.”






So you see, if you make an issue out of trying to persecute a physician acting out of conscience you are guilty of discrimination and you or your hospital can lose a lot of government money.

 

[Regnvejr]

Well, good luck with that position when you start practicing.

 

[melanoleuca]

Well, good luck with that position when you start practicing.

Whoa. It is not a "position," it's the law. And I am practicing and I do most emphatically refuse to participate in elective abortions in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Regnvejr]

Whoa. It is not a "position," it's the law. And I am practicing and I do most emphatically refuse to participate in elective abortions in any way, shape, or form.

If you are in OB/GYN, then it technically would be your field, and while you would not be required to perform abortions, you have a duty to refer out.

 

[melanoleuca]

If you are in OB/GYN, then it technically would be your field, and while you would not be required to perform abortions, you have a duty to refer out.

I am not in OB/Gyn...but although ACOG has a policy on referral, they do not sanction their members who don't refer for abortions. In fact, there is a large group of pro-life Obstetricians who will have nothing at all to do with elective abortions. Additionally, all Catholic hospitals of which there are many and many of whcih have thriving obstetrical services will not even consider forcing thier affiliated physicians to refer for abortions.

Besides, the law is the law and no professional organization can flout it. I'm sure if ACOG decided to deny board certification to pro-life physicians they would quickly be on the losing end of a major lawsuit. Again, 46 states have laws that expicitely protect a physician from legal or professional jeapordy from refusing to even refer for an elective abortion.

I will never understand the zeal many otherwise rational people have to ensure that no one is allowed to step outside of their own narrow-minded beliefs; in this case ensuring that everyone is is complicit in the seedy abortion industry.

 

[Regnvejr]

I will never understand the zeal many otherwise rational people have to ensure that no one is allowed to step outside of their own narrow-minded beliefs; in this case ensuring that everyone is is complicit in the seedy abortion industry.

Or in this case trying to ensure that nobody would ever have any mmedical procedures you don't approve off. You imposing yuor morality onto your patients' care is despicable and amoral.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Or in this case trying to ensure that nobody would ever have any mmedical procedures you don't approve off. You imposing yuor morality onto your patients' care is despicable and amoral.

Holy Jesus man. Is it that hard to find another provider who would perform an abortion?

The answer is no. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/contact-us.htm Anyone with telephone access can easily find someone who will perform an abortion.

As for the law, in SC (where I am) it is not illegal nor can you be sued for refusing to refer the patient to another provider. You may find that despicable, and that's certainly your right, but just saying you must refer doesn't make it true.

 

[melanoleuca]

Or in this case trying to ensure that nobody would ever have any mmedical procedures you don't approve off. You imposing yuor morality onto your patients' care is despicable and amoral.

Elective abortion, as it is never medically indicated and treats a process that is not even a disease, is not part of my patient's medical care. You might even say that a doctor treating a pregnant woman has two patients and if that is the case, I am constrained to "first do no harm" to either of them.

"Amoral" means the "absence of morals." In this case what you mean is the exercise of a set or moral principles with which you disagree. It is a sad day indeed when someone who will not refer a woman to a butcher to off her unborn child is called "despicable" and "amoral."

 

[Regnvejr]

....her unborn child ..

Ah, that must be like calling you an "undead corpse." The anti-choice revisionist linguistic hyperbole is truly lame.

 

[melanoleuca]

Ah, that must be like calling you an "undead corpse." The anti-choice revisionist linguistic hyperbole is truly lame.

Well, why not use the term "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice?" "Un-born child" is at least factually correct and adresses the fundamental moral principle involved.

 

[Regnvejr]

Well, why not use the term "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice?"

Because the focus is not on pushing abortions, but rather about pushing a person's right to control their own bodily resources and make independent choices regarding this.

"Un-born child" is at least factually correct

Not really. "child" remains a developmental stage beginning some time after birth, and as such, the attempt at extending it to before birth is NOT factual in any way. It is dishonest sophistry, showing your ilk to be a pack of liars. Very disturbing for future medical professionals. And it is no more factual than calling you an un-dead corpse.

Likewise, this mean that YOUR personal claim of this being factual also shows YOU to be dishonest. Rather disturbing.

..and adresses the fundamental moral principle involved.

Not really. The claim of non-sensate, non-sentient tissue being a "child" doesn't imply any moral whatsoever, other than the immorality of misrepresentation, dishonesty and pro-life as inherently a pack of liars. So perhaps there is a moral issue in pro-lifers always lying, but that is not addressed by you lying even MORE.

There is nothing inherently moral about claiming an embryo to be a "child." Sophistry and emotional histrionics is all you seem to have to offer. Lame.

Now, you can claim personal conviction and beliefs and a moral position which is all fine and well. But when you present that position through lies, then there is no morality left in you, only dishonesty. Shame on you.

 

[cpants]

Because the focus is not on pushing abortions, but rather about pushing a person's right to control their own bodily resources and make independent choices regarding this.
Not really. "child" remains a developmental stage beginning some time after birth, and as such, the attempt at extending it to before birth is NOT factual in any way. It is dishonest sophistry, showing your ilk to be a pack of liars. Very disturbing for future medical professionals. And it is no more factual than calling you an un-dead corpse.

Likewise, this mean that YOUR personal claim of this being factual also shows YOU to be dishonest. Rather disturbing.
Not really. The claim of non-sensate, non-sentient tissue being a "child" doesn't imply any moral whatsoever, other than the immorality of misrepresentation, dishonesty and pro-life as inherently a pack of liars. So perhaps there is a moral issue in pro-lifers always lying, but that is not addressed by you lying even MORE.

There is nothing inherently moral about claiming an embryo to be a "child." Sophistry and emotional histrionics is all you seem to have to offer. Lame.

Now, you can claim personal conviction and beliefs and a moral position which is all fine and well. But when you present that position through lies, then there is no morality left in you, only dishonesty. Shame on you.

You are arguing semantics, when the real argument should be when is a fetus, unborn child, whatever you want to call it considered a living being with human rights? There is hypocrisy on this issue, even within our own legal system. A murderer is charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman, yet that same woman could abort the fetus and be charged with zero murders.

 

[tibor75]

If you morally object to something, you have a right to not participate in any way.

As a physician, you should give all the legal options to a patient. If assisted suicide isn't legal, you don't have to give it as an option to a dying patient. If the morning after pill is legal, you have a professional obligation to tell a rape victim about it. You don't have to give it to her, but you have to tell her where to get it. If you don't, you aren't much of a doctor.

 

[Miami_med]

As a physician, you should give all the legal options to a patient. If assisted suicide isn't legal, you don't have to give it as an option to a dying patient. If the morning after pill is legal, you have a professional obligation to tell a rape victim about it. You don't have to give it to her, but you have to tell her where to get it. If you don't, you aren't much of a doctor.

I'm still wondering why the amoral morass that we call the Federal Government blessing something automatically obligates every physician in the country to participate in its distribution. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I'm trying to figure out whose "morality" requires you to participate or refer for things that you find morally objectionable. This has nothing to do with what should or should not be legal. It is about personal and professional autonomy for the DOCTOR as well as the patient. Everyone keeps stating what is moral without any real justification for making that claim. How do you define morality? Why does your definition apply to me and the entire rest of the medical profession?

 

[Regnvejr]

You are arguing semantics,

My irony meter just broke from overload, hypocrite.

when the real argument should be when is a fetus, unborn child, whatever you want to call it considered a living being with human rights?

At birth. That one is easy, you undead corpse.

There is hypocrisy on this issue, even within our own legal system. A murderer is charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman,

Only per recent, special anti-choice legislation.

yet that same woman could abort the fetus and be charged with zero murders.

As well it should be. Nobody and nothing has the right to use a person's bodily resources. Nobody can force you to give blood or that extra kidney, nor can anybody force you to give bodily resources to parasites or embryos against your will. You wanting to take that right away from pregnant women merely shows your misogynistic hypocrisy and desire to control and oppress women for the sake of non-sensate, non-sentient tissue. or is that just your excuse for legitimating that oppression?

If you want fewer abortions, stop pushing your political fantasies at the expense of women's rights. Start pushing better sex-ed than the theocrats have pushed the last 8 years, start pushing better and more available contraception, and start pushing better support for pregnant women and new families. Start helping women rather than oppress them, and THEN we will finally believe pro-lifers are serious rather than just misogynistic, lying scum.

 

[Regnvejr]

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I'm trying to figure out whose "morality" requires you to participate or refer for things that you find morally objectionable.

Your job is to be of service and assistance to that patient obtaining more control over their own life, not to push your oppressive morality onto them. You don't live their lives, you are not the expert in their lives, and you completely flunked the ethics class you were supposed to have had somewhere along the road. If I was your attending and knew this, I would come down hard on you because I could not be sure you would serve your patients best interest rather than impose your life onto them.

This has nothing to do with what should or should not be legal. It is about personal and professional autonomy for the DOCTOR as well as the patient.

Part of this being your ethics in knowing that if you cannot help your patients without bias, then you need to stay out of that field. If you have a certain moral hangup regarding medicine, then it is your responsibility and duty to make sure you never let your patients suffer from that personal problem. If you cannot do so, then it is your duty to stay out of fields where this could ever be an issue. You REALLY need to read up on the 4 points of ethics for physicians again.

Everyone keeps stating what is moral without any real justification for making that claim. How do you define morality? Why does your definition apply to me and the entire rest of the medical profession?

It is not about whether abortion is moral or not, it is about you practicing medicine for the sake of your patients rather than for your personal, political gratification. If you cannot do so, then you have no business being in this profession.

There is a REASON why you had those ethics classes.

 

[cpants]

My irony meter just broke from overload, hypocrite.
At birth. That one is easy, you undead corpse.
Only per recent, special anti-choice legislation.

As well it should be. Nobody and nothing has the right to use a person's bodily resources. Nobody can force you to give blood or that extra kidney, nor can anybody force you to give bodily resources to parasites or embryos against your will. You wanting to take that right away from pregnant women merely shows your misogynistic hypocrisy and desire to control and oppress women for the sake of non-sensate, non-sentient tissue. or is that just your excuse for legitimating that oppression?

If you want fewer abortions, stop pushing your political fantasies at the expense of women's rights. Start pushing better sex-ed than the theocrats have pushed the last 8 years, start pushing better and more available contraception, and start pushing better support for pregnant women and new families. Start helping women rather than oppress them, and THEN we will finally believe pro-lifers are serious rather than just misogynistic, lying scum.

I never understand why most pro-choicers have to be so self-righteous and condescending. Believe me it doesn't help the cause. Anyway, as I've already stated multiple times on this thread, I am pro-choice. I don't want less abortions. I want more abortions. Our population is growing out of control, and abortion should be used early on in pregnancy when the child is unwanted. A child born into an unwanted situation has the deck stacked against him, and is likely to end up a burden to the taxpayers. As it gets later in gestation I feel a lot less comfortable with abortion, as do most reasonable people.

Here is the difference between me and other pro-choicers on this thread. I think that it is far more important to protect the rights of individual physicians than to improve access to abortion.

It's hard for you to see clearly on this issue, since in your own mind, you have already framed anything pro-life as some kind of assault on women. Try to frame it in the context of another issue, and still see if you feel that physicians' morality should be dictated by the government or a professional organization. Earlier, I tried to pose the example of objection to circumcision, but no one bit. Here's another one. Breast augmentation. It's perfectly legal, but many physicians may see it as a mutilation of normal anatomy or ineffective treatment for self-esteem issues. Why should a physician, even a plastic surgeon, be required to counsel or refer for this practice, if he finds it morally objectionable?

 

[cpants]

As a physician, you should give all the legal options to a patient. If assisted suicide isn't legal, you don't have to give it as an option to a dying patient. If the morning after pill is legal, you have a professional obligation to tell a rape victim about it. You don't have to give it to her, but you have to tell her where to get it. If you don't, you aren't much of a doctor.

I guess you don't like thinking for yourself. It's easier to have the government tell you what's right and wrong, but I prefer to decide on my own.

 

[meister]

Anyway, as I've already stated multiple times on this thread, I am pro-choice. I don't want less abortions. I want more abortions. Our population is growing out of control, and abortion should be used early on in pregnancy when the child is unwanted.

These might be the worst four sentences I've ever seen on SDN. You want more abortions? And you think America's population is out of control? Have you looked at Russia lately? Negative population growth is a terrible, terrible thing, and if we didn't have Mexicans hopping the border our country would not be in good shape longterm.

It is possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion you realize, right?

 

[meister]

Oh Christ, just saw the Ron Paul avatar, now it all makes sense. You probably think the gold standard is a good idea too, right?

 

[Regnvejr]

I never understand why most pro-choicers have to be so self-righteous and condescending.

I never understand why most anti-abortion fundie nuts have to always lie and be such frigging misogynists.

Believe me it doesn't help the cause.

Talking to the mirror, I see.

Anyway, as I've already stated multiple times on this thread, I am pro-choice. I don't want less abortions. I want more abortions.

Well, good luck with that, then.

Our population is growing out of control, and abortion should be used early on in pregnancy when the child is unwanted. A child born into an unwanted situation has the deck stacked against him, and is likely to end up a burden to the taxpayers. As it gets later in gestation I feel a lot less comfortable with abortion, as do most reasonable people.

DUH! So set up facilitating this rather than hinder it. And start working on preventing these unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

Here is the difference between me and other pro-choicers on this thread. I think that it is far more important to protect the rights of individual physicians than to improve access to abortion.

Yes, you support the unethical imposing of personal morals and beliefs onto patients. We ALREADY know that.

It's hard for you to see clearly on this issue, since in your own mind, you have already framed anything pro-life as some kind of assault on women. Try to frame it in the context of another issue, and still see if you feel that physicians' morality should be dictated by the government or a professional organization.

It is not. Nobody are forced to perform an abortion. But per professional ethics, the class you so utterly ignored Ina medical school, a physician's job is not to prevent patients from obtaining treatment just because you don't like it. If you feel unable to handle it, you refer to others. Else you violate all physician ethics codes.

Now, if you cannot handle that, then you have absolutely NO business becoming a physician, and at some point a lawyer will take you out.

Earlier, I tried to pose the example of objection to circumcision, but no one bit. Here's another one. Breast augmentation. It's perfectly legal, but many physicians may see it as a mutilation of normal anatomy or ineffective treatment for self-esteem issues. Why should a physician, even a plastic surgeon, be required to counsel or refer for this practice, if he finds it morally objectionable?

Because he (or she. Your sexism is duly noted) is not in the business of running the patients lives or decide their lives for them. You are not the expert in their lives and have no business deciding how they should live. Go read up on those ethics principles for physicians. With EVERY post you display a disturbing ignorance of them. If you don't agree with breast augmentation, you are free to not do them, but you are not free to decide for your patients that they shouldn't have them. If you are not able to handle this, then stay out of fields where you might be put in such dilemmas, or stay out of the filed of medicine completely, where your duty to not impose yourself on your patients is greater than most fields.

 

[Regnvejr]

I guess you don't like thinking for yourself. It's easier to have the government tell you what's right and wrong, but I prefer to decide on my own.

Except that you think you control your patients and decide how they should live their lives. Shame on you.

 

[Pharmavixen]

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, legalize it completely. Get rid of laws restricting abortions of any kind.

In Canada, abortion was removed from the Criminal Code years ago. It's no more regulated than appendectomies. Have a look here, and see how the US stacks up against other more liberal countries with respect to abortion rates.

 

[Miami_med]

Your job is to be of service and assistance to that patient obtaining more control over their own life, not to push your oppressive morality onto them. You don't live their lives, you are not the expert in their lives, and you completely flunked the ethics class you were supposed to have had somewhere along the road. If I was your attending and knew this, I would come down hard on you because I could not be sure you would serve your patients best interest rather than impose your life onto them.
Part of this being your ethics in knowing that if you cannot help your patients without bias, then you need to stay out of that field. If you have a certain moral hangup regarding medicine, then it is your responsibility and duty to make sure you never let your patients suffer from that personal problem. If you cannot do so, then it is your duty to stay out of fields where this could ever be an issue. You REALLY need to read up on the 4 points of ethics for physicians again.
It is not about whether abortion is moral or not, it is about you practicing medicine for the sake of your patients rather than for your personal, political gratification. If you cannot do so, then you have no business being in this profession.

There is a REASON why you had those ethics classes.

The ethics class that I had in medical school, like every single one of your arguments, was based on a stated ethic with no actual justification and then circular reasoning. You probably wouldn't come down on me hard as an attending, because my practice wouldn't be outside of the bounds of your approval. Unless you are a big believe in Orwellian thought crime, you would probably never know I disagreed with you.

WHO INVENTED PHYSICIAN'S ETHICS????????? You keep bringing up some ethic that is clearly not agreed upon as though it was brought off of Mt. Sinai by Moses on a golden tablet.

Everyone also has bias in everything that they do. Your opinions are clearly as biased as anyone else's. Everytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of being: a)a misogynist b) a liar or c)unethical This is not a civil debate. I will remind you that this borders on a TOS violation. Your reactionary bias against your fellow physicians is so deep that you respond with hateful one liners to half of the arguments. No one has made one argument that meets any rational definition of mysogynistic. No has said that women should be treated differently than men. No has said that women are inferior to men. No one has said that women shouldn't have the same opportunities as men. No one has said that women shouldn't be allowed the same leeway in choosing a doctor that provides the services they are seeking as men. Having moral hang-ups with abortion is not being a misogynist.

I will state it one final time. I have ZERO interest in imposing anything on anyone. I want physician's to have the right to stay out of areas of other people's business in which they feel they cannot provide the services for ethical, professional, or technical reasons. I have never condoned lying to patients. I have never condoned ignoring patient's in an emergency. In fact, the only argument that I have made the entire time is that physicians have the right to stay out of procedures (especially elective procedures) which they find objectionable. This includes referrals.

This thread is going nowhere, so if I keep getting posts with responses that are simply calling people names from any side of the debate, I will close it.

We clearly do not

 

[Miami_med]

Oh Christ, just saw the Ron Paul avatar, now it all makes sense. You probably think the gold standard is a good idea too, right?

Completely as an aside, the current economic crisis is exactly why the gold standard is a good idea. That is unless you are one of those people that think that the current crisis is the result of Bush not spending enough money domestically while "greedy" bankers all simultaneously set up their companies for financial suicide. Of course, the gold standard would get in the way of the current "cure" for this morass, because we wouln't be able to spend $2 trillion bailing out bad business models, funding random programs backed by big lobbying entities, and creating "green" jobs. Yep, tying the value of money to something tangible might really get in the way of that and clearly prevent our salvation.

 

[melanoleuca]

Except that you think you control your patients and decide how they should live their lives. Shame on you.

If only. To date, I believe that not one patient I have advised to quit smoking has quit, told that they need to stop doing drugs has stopped, or advised that they needed to cut down on their drinking has cut down. Maybe I should just stop trying to decide how they live their lives.

 

[melanoleuca]

Your job is to be of service and assistance to that patient obtaining more control over their own life, not to push your oppressive morality onto them. You don't live their lives, you are not the expert in their lives, and you completely flunked the ethics class you were supposed to have had somewhere along the road. If I was your attending and knew this, I would come down hard on you because I could not be sure you would serve your patients best interest rather than impose your life onto them.
Part of this being your ethics in knowing that if you cannot help your patients without bias, then you need to stay out of that field. If you have a certain moral hangup regarding medicine, then it is your responsibility and duty to make sure you never let your patients suffer from that personal problem. If you cannot do so, then it is your duty to stay out of fields where this could ever be an issue. You REALLY need to read up on the 4 points of ethics for physicians again.
It is not about whether abortion is moral or not, it is about you practicing medicine for the sake of your patients rather than for your personal, political gratification. If you cannot do so, then you have no business being in this profession.

There is a REASON why you had those ethics classes.

I didn't know that medicine was a cult. We might as well be Scientologists if our dogma is so rigid that it doesn't allow for any diversity of opinion.

 

[melanoleuca]

...If I was your attending and knew this, I would come down hard on you because I could not be sure you would serve your patients best interest rather than impose your life onto them...

Ah, the arrogance of the academic physician. A little off topic but I am so glad to be done with residency and to never have to deal with another academic physician ever again. In fact, I picked my first position based on three criteria: 1) Pay 2) Location and 3) No affiliation with a teaching hospital, no residents, no medical students, no "attendings" and no possibility of ever interacting with them ever again. I will be perfectly content to work and make money as clinician and never, ever have to become involved in the great cluster-****-cum-goat-rodeo known as academic medicine.

 

[cpants]

Oh Christ, just saw the Ron Paul avatar, now it all makes sense. You probably think the gold standard is a good idea too, right?

Yeah I know, really crazy to want your currency tied to something of value. Ludicrous.

 

[BabyKangaroo]

Perused this thread and wanted to chime in. The issue will never be resolved. One side is talking about the sanctity and respect to human life, the other is talking about the freedom of choice to do whatever they like with that life. Apples and oranges. One side says "don't impose your beliefs on me" while all they are doing is the same thing to the "religious nut." Who's the nut here?

Since when did convenience subjugate respect for life and its potential? Personally, I am glad my mother never had an abortion, and I am sure you all are too. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to make all of your witty comments on SDN and live the amazing opportunity of a life you all live right now going through medical school, becoming doctors. Do you really want to take that hard-earned education and be subjected to nothing but vending machines for patients? Bottom line, the moral compass of a physician is what makes him/her a physician.

 

[Regnvejr]

The ethics class that I had in medical school, like every single one of your arguments, was based on a stated ethic with no actual justification and then circular reasoning.

Ah, so your teachers were not good enough to teach you why the rules were there, or you were to busy with "real" issues to be bothered with ethics.

You probably wouldn't come down on me hard as an attending, because my practice wouldn't be outside of the bounds of your approval. Unless you are a big believe in Orwellian thought crime, you would probably never know I disagreed with you.

If I found out you were to refer per the rules of ethics and you didn't, then certainly I would report you to the licensing board.

WHO INVENTED PHYSICIAN'S ETHICS?????????

Physicians.

You keep bringing up some ethic that is clearly not agreed upon as though it was brought off of Mt. Sinai by Moses on a golden tablet.

They are agreed to the point of being a common part of medical education, meaning it is as accepted as all other standardized educational subjects taught in medical school.

You NOT agreeing with the ethics rules set up to guide our profession against unethical behavior clearly shows you way out of the mainstream

Everyone also has bias in everything that they do.

Sure, and it is therefore important for all of us to not inflict this on our patients. It is important for us to know so we can take steps to keep these personal and not let them spill over into our professional interactions with patients.

Your opinions are clearly as biased as anyone else's.

Certainly. And I am actively checking myself to make sure I don't inflict them on my patients. You seem to have no such concern, which frankly makes you a poor physician.

Everytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of being: a)a misogynist b) a liar or c)unethical This is not a civil debate. I will remind you that this borders on a TOS violation.

Your one-sided view of my posts without consideration for the posts I respond to is duly noted. Someone with as much disregard and disrespect for ethics as you demonstrate should not be expected to show fair and impartial interaction with others, so I am not surprised. I **AM** surprised, though, that somebody like you are made a moderator. Ah, well. SDN has its reasons, no doubt.

Your reactionary bias against your fellow physicians is so deep that you respond with hateful one liners to half of the arguments.

AH, yes. I'm the bad one coming here and attacking your friends ... erm, I mean... "the poor innocent posters"

No one has made one argument that meets any rational definition of mysogynistic.

Sure they have and I even documented why. You do just politically not agree and therefore deny it.

No has said that women should be treated differently than men.

By removing their right to control their own bodies, a right men enjoy?? Yeah, good one LIAR!!!!!!

No has said that women are inferior to men. No one has said that women shouldn't have the same opportunities as men.

Actually they have, but you will continue to lie about that.

No one has said that women shouldn't be allowed the same leeway in choosing a doctor that provides the services they are seeking as men. Having moral hang-ups with abortion is not being a misogynist.

Not at all, and I never claimed that. But then seeking to deliberately keep that woman from having an abortion by specifically violating the ethical duty to refer, THAT is misogynistic, THAT is to seek to control her for the sake of their own personal morals. THAT is misogyny, your denial and defense of it none withstanding.

I will state it one final time. I have ZERO interest in imposing anything on anyone. I want physician's to have the right to stay out of areas of other people's business in which they feel they cannot provide the services for ethical, professional, or technical reasons.

Sounds good.

I have never condoned lying to patients.

So you agree in full informed consent with the patient knowing all their options. That sure SOUNDS good...

I have never condoned ignoring patient's in an emergency. In fact, the only argument that I have made the entire time is that physicians have the right to stay out of procedures (especially elective procedures) which they find objectionable. This includes referrals.

And there you prove that all your fine words are just more LIES!!!! Once again, you endorse hiding options from women and NOT giving them the information needed for them to make an informed decision about their own health care. Once again you demonstrates you being unfit to be a physician.

This thread is going nowhere, so if I keep getting posts with responses that are simply calling people names from any side of the debate, I will close it.

Ah, the good old threat of censorship. Yes, again I must wonder why you were made a moderator.

 

[Regnvejr]

I didn't know that medicine was a cult. We might as well be Scientologists if our dogma is so rigid that it doesn't allow for any diversity of opinion.

You can have all the diversity of opinion you want. You just can't inflict it on your patients to remove their oprion for informed medical decision-making. You don't like a procedure? Fine, don't do it. You don't refer and thus hide from your patients that they can get that treatment elsewhere, removing their informed medical decision-making, and you deserve to rot in hell.

 

[Regnvejr]

Ah, the arrogance of the academic physician.

LOL, I'm in a community health center.

 

[Regnvejr]

Since when did convenience subjugate respect for life and its potential?

Since when did theocratic oppression become an accepted way of dealing with your patients?

Bottom line, the moral compass of a physician is what makes him/her a physician.

Bottom line. Hiding information from your patients is to lie to them and not allow them to make informed decisions about their health care, a flagrant violation of common medical ethics.

 

[Miami_med]

How about this? I'll let you have the last word. No one is censoring anyone, but this thread is turning into everyone calling everyone names, so I will close it.