Pro-Life and the dreaded abortion question

[TrickyIssues]

Hi all,

I usually post on this forum under another name, but these are rough times in which to be pro-life and- since schools have been known to visit these forums from time to time- I thought it'd be wise to post under a new name.

That said, I'm set to apply in the cycle of 2007. I'm also pro-life. In fact my mother very nearly chose to abort me (she gave me to another family instead), so as you can imagine I've very, VERY pro-life. Nearly ending up in a biohazard bag will have that effect on a person.

That said, I'm not sure what to do about the oh-so-common abortion question. The "proper" answer has been discussed at length in the Topics in Healthcare forum and was summarized by ofthesun as follows:



I would first attempt to confirm through conversation that she was competent to make the decision herself, ensuring there were no mental deficits or emotional imbalances that would prevent her from making proper informed consent.

Next, I would want to ensure that her request is not the product of her suffering any abuse, asking if she can tell me a little about her experience so far. I would encourage her, making sure she understood why I was asking. I would try my best to ensure she was in whatever sexual relationship she was entering for healthy reasons.

Following that, I would check if she has talked about this with her parents. If she would be comfortable with it, I would encourage her to bring them into the consideration. If not, I would ask if she has any other adult guardian that she would feel comfortable knowing, say an aunt of uncle or Big Brother or Sister.

If there was no one she felt she would be comfortable with getting support from, I would feel best contacting social services and bringing in someone to help her make this decision (only with her ok of course - forcing social services involvement would be equal to forcing parents I think.), so she doesn't feel like she rushed into a huge decision all by herself.

Lastly, I would want to confirm my legal obligations with a lawyer or ethics council.

Barring any unforeseen circumstances along the way, I would then prescribe whatever birth control/ abortion.

Personally, however, I would do nothing of the kind. If faced with that situation I would do only what was absolutely required of me by my hospital and by the law- which is probably to explain that my beliefs prevent me from providing that sort of care and referring elsewhere. And- if hospital policy would let me get away with it- I'd tell the girl my story and how I personally feel about this issue as an almost-abortee.

So the question is: what do I do about interviews? As I see it, I have 3 options:

1) Tell the truth. But my telling the truth seems unlikely to result in admittance given the current political climate in the Northeast (where I live).
2) Lie through my teeth, give the answer posted above, and try not to hate myself.
2) Choose to apply only to schools that do not report abortion questions in
the Feedback section of SDN. This what I'm currently planning, but it seems awfully craptacular to have to limit myself to schools based on this issue.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Whootman]

I am a big proponent of telling the truth when it comes to ethical questions such as these. From what I gather, they're mainly testing you to see IF you have an opinion on the issues, not WHAT your opinion is. As long as you can articulate your opinion and give reasons for it, I think you'd be fine. As far as your third option goes, that seems a little ridiculous to me. I think it would be unfair to limit yourself like that, plus it seems like kind of a cop out to try to avoid that interview question. Also, I doubt that interviewers at schools always ask the same questions, so you might get the question at a school at which you didn't see it reported or the other way around.

 

[ND2005]

I think you're worrying too much.

I'm Catholic and went to a Catholic school, so if anyone was going to get "the abortion question" in an interview, it seems like I'd be a prime candidate.

8 interviews...0 mentions of abortion.

Also, my opinion on the matter was that, if someone brought it up in an interview, I'd tell the truth. If a school doesn't accept me b/c of my personal beliefs, they can go F*** themselves.

 

[beefballs]

Hi all,

I usually post on this forum under another name, but these are rough times in which to be pro-life and- since schools have been known to visit these forums from time to time- I thought it'd be wise to post under a new name.

WHat are you talking about, rough times to be pro-life. You developed an alias for an alias to hide from who exactly?
This has got to be someone just trying to stir the pot.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

Oh suck it up. I'm sorry you were almost aborted but that's no reason to be this worried. No one is going to NOT admit you based on your pro-life views. If after such a "dreaded" question you weren't admitted, you have to think about other parts of your application. At most schools there are two+ faculty interviewers and a student interview. I really doubt every person is going to ask you about abortion. This question is a small part of yet another relatively small piece of the admissions pie.

It sounds like you have pretty strong convictions so I'm sure you can come up with a good answer. If the patient's health is in danger, your duty is to her. If the patient's health is not necessarily in danger, go ahead, counsel and refer. Be consistent and don't be wishy-washy. These "Northeast" schools care about intelligence and poise as well, and if you can answer intelligently, showing that the patient's health is your ultimate concern, then I am sure your application will stand on its own merits.

 

[MollyMalone]

There is nothing wrong with answering that you are personally anti-abortion but that you would comply with state regulations and facility policy in your care of the patient. (Some states apparently don't require you to refer -- though I doubt the NE states are among them.)

If a school would reject you for this answer, it's not a school it sounds like you'd want to be at anyway.

I personally feel that it would be inappropriate for you to tell your personal story, but that's simply my opinion.

 

[beefballs]

yeah I never got abortion or euthanasia questions either, not that I would have cared if I did

 

[RunnerMD]

I'm pro-life and had this question asked twice. I simply said that if I were in that situation, I would try to talk with the girl/woman and find out all the background info, encourage her to talk to her parents, etc., and if she still wanted to have an abortion, then I would refer her to another physician.

None of my interviewers seemed to have a problem with this. I think its more important to sound confident in your answer (in the sense that you have really thought about this). I think that alot of these morality-type questions have more to do with seeing if YOU have really thought about this issue, rather than the content of your answer.

 

[Em1]

There's nothing wrong with being pro-life. Schools are not going to think you'll make a less competant physician just because of your opinion on this highly charged moral issue.

I think you will be fine if you say you'll explain your beliefs and refer her elsewhere. Do NOT say you would try to convince her not to do it (for moral reasons), make any efforts to prevent her from having one, be condescending towards her, etc.

 

[Centinel]

I was asked at 0/10 schools about my views on abortion, even though several of the schools had the 'abortion question' in the SDN feedback. And at any rate, your honest answer should be sufficient. Essentially, "I would follow all requirements and guidelines of the AMA, the state in which I practice, and the hospital where I work." You could tell them your story to give them further appreciation for why you aren't an ardent abortion supporter.

PS - In lieu of traditional abortion, I favor a new procedure called 'total birth abortion', but only for people that I don't like over the age of 18. Rumor has it that Jack Bauer agrees with me. What would your thoughts on this one be?

 

[TrickyIssues]

Oh suck it up. I'm sorry you were almost aborted but that's no reason to be this worried.

There's no need to be rude, mouse. You see, THIS is why I posted under a new pseudonym. You've replied to my posts before and have not been so crass.

Obviously, I'm extremely sensitive about this issue (never talk about it from day to day unless I'm absolutely FORCED to) so the thought of having a stranger pick my brain about it is hightly unpleasant.


[/QUOTE]
No one is going to NOT admit you based on your pro-life views. If after such a "dreaded" question you weren't admitted, you have to think about other parts of your application. At most schools there are two+ faculty interviewers and a student interview. I really doubt every person is going to ask you about abortion. This question is a small part of yet another relatively small piece of the admissions pie.[/QUOTE]

It would be lovely it this were true, but it's not. The SUNYs, in particular, are famous for only taking applicants who anwer in accorandance with the interviewers' politics. Plus, it's only natural for peole to think better of those who agree with them. THis is fairly common knowledge, I think.

[/QUOTE]It sounds like you have pretty strong convictions so I'm sure you can come up with a good answer. If the patient's health is in danger, your duty is to her. If the patient's health is not necessarily in danger, go ahead, counsel and refer. Be consistent and don't be wishy-washy. These "Northeast" schools care about intelligence and poise as well, and if you can answer intelligently, showing that the patient's health is your ultimate concern, then I am sure your application will stand on its own merits.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I hope this will be the case.

 

[TrickyIssues]

I was asked at 0/10 schools about my views on abortion, even though several of the schools had the 'abortion question' in the SDN feedback. And at any rate, your honest answer should be sufficient. Essentially, "I would follow all requirements and guidelines of the AMA, the state in which I practice, and the hospital where I work." You could tell them your story to give them further appreciation for why you aren't an ardent abortion supporter.

PS - In lieu of traditional abortion, I favor a new procedure called 'total birth abortion', but only for people that I don't like over the age of 18. Rumor has it that Jack Bauer agrees with me. What would your thoughts on this one be?

LOL, you are truly a visionary.

 

[TrickyIssues]

opps

 

[Depakote]

From what I've heard, a lot of interviewers might fight you on some ethical questions, but as long as you stick to your beliefs and don't reverse yourself, you'll come out ok. They won't hold it against you for believing what you believe.

Now you might have a hard time getting an OB residency, but that's another story.

 

[TrickyIssues]

Hi all,

I usually post on this forum under another name, but these are rough times in which to be pro-life and- since schools have been known to visit these forums from time to time- I thought it'd be wise to post under a new name.

WHat are you talking about, rough times to be pro-life. You developed an alias for an alias to hide from who exactly?
This has got to be someone just trying to stir the pot.

Please see the opening lines of anony-mouse's post, and my reposnse to it, to understand why I chose to use an "alias" as you have chramingly termed it.

And, yes, these are VERY rough times to be pro-life in the Northeast. Everyone's up in arms about South Dakota, you see.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

It would be lovely it this were true, but it's not. The SUNYs, in particular, are famous for only taking applicants who anwer in accorandance with the interviewers' politics. Plus, it's only natural for peole to think better of those who agree with them. THis is fairly common knowledge, I think.

The reason I was "crass" was NOT because of your anti-abortion views. To be honest, I am personally indifferent towards this issue for now, although I feel that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Anyway. If I offended you, I honestly apologize. The reason I said that is because it's the same way I would have responded to a "I applied to too many schools and only got accepted to the one I would never ever go to, should I still matriculate?"-type post. Nothing personal, so don't take my words out of context (especially since the rest of my post, I thought, was supportive). I really think you should be intelligent enough to know that your poise and conviction, along with the strength of the rest of your application should carry you to some med school or another. At some point in your life, you're going to encounter people who disagree with you, who are in pretty high places. Avoiding these situations (you said you were tempted NOT to apply to such schools) is shooting yourself in the foot.

And re: the SUNY schools -- fairly common knowledge? What? 1) I haven't heard of this. 2) anything of this sort is just conjecture because you have no idea how the committees work to decide on the outcome of your application. Are you above rumors? Jeez, deal with it and stand behind your convictions.

 

[Hurricane95]

Don't worry...I'm pro-life as well and I was asked this question at both my Miami and University of Florida interviews. I answered the complete truth; I'm not going to lie about my beliefs just because that may or may not be what the interviewer wants to hear. My primary obligation is to my patient's well-being. I'll talk to her about the issue, see if she has really thought it through, etc. If, she STILL wants to murder her unborn child (in my opinion, that's the only thing you can call it - yes, I have my flame suit on), I'll refer her to a colleague who is willing to do it. There I did my part and fulfilled my obligation to my patient without going against my beliefs by making sure she gets the adequate medical care she needs somewhere else. Both interviewers seemed to like my response and I was accepted to both schools, so no problem. If an interviewer gives you a hard time after giving your honest answer, don't break down, they are most likely trying to test what you're made of. Once you commit to a viewpoint, don't switch, thats the worst thing you can do. It shows you're flaky...you don't want to pull a kerry and "flip-flop".

I agree with the other poster(s) who said that when asked loaded questions like these they don't care as much about your actual view, but rather that you have one and that you can back it up. No one likes an indecisive doctor, and that's what they are trying to weed out.

 

[NonTradMed]

Med schools like to ask ethical questions not because they want someone they can 'agree' with, but to see your thought processes. If you can make a coherent response, stand by your decision and sound confident, they will take that as a sign of a good physician. Getting two out of the three is not good, no matter what your stance is.

I had two med schools ask me ethical questions (one about universal health care, the other about treating underage Jehovah Witness) and they both later said they cared more about how I explained my reasoning, rather than what I say. Of course, an extreme answer is also bad (i.e I would never, under any circumstances perform an abortion, would shoot my colleagues for doing so etc), so it's good to explain and be diplomatic with your language. I was pretty adament about not denying treatment even to an underaged patient despite lack of parental agreement and the adcom seemed to like the fact I reasoned it out and stuck to a sound decision even though he said hospital policies don't usually work that way and I got an acceptance later.

 

[Saluki]

I interviewed 9 places, and I never got that question. If I had gotten it, I would have told them that I would talk the patient thru the different possibilities, encourage them to seek counseling with a neutral party, and if they wanted it, I would refer them to a colleague...

 

[odrade1]

I'm also pro-life. In fact my mother very nearly chose to abort me (she gave me to another family instead), so as you can imagine I've very, VERY pro-life. Nearly ending up in a biohazard bag will have that effect on a person.

I think that as long as you can articulate your views properly, you should be ok. Also, some schools have procedures for fixing bad or unfair interviews, so if you found a rabid pro-choicer as your interviewer, and this person treated you badly in the interview, you may have the ability to schedule a different interview, etc.. At least this was the policy at our school.

I personally am pro-choice, but I recognize that some of the pro-life positions are reasoned (even if I see them as incorrect or sub-optimal). That said, I think that there are better reasons to be pro-life than the one you mentioned at the beginning of your post.

Nearly ending up in a biohazard bag (or bucket) would truly be a terrible thing, but I don't think it makes sense to claim that you had a near-death experience, or that you personally nearly ended up in a biohazard bag.

Other, better reasons exist to prohibit abortions. Personal comfort isn't one of them, and the near-death experience angle--while a little shocking--isn't a satisfying reason either.

Despite my disagreement with your logic, you seem pretty coherent overall, and I bet that you do well in your interviews. Good luck with your interviews.

 

[beefballs]

There's no need to be rude, mouse. You see, THIS is why I posted under a new pseudonym. You've replied to my posts before and have not been so crass.

Obviously, I'm extremely sensitive about this issue (never talk about it from day to day unless I'm absolutely FORCED to) so the thought of having a stranger pick my brain about it is hightly unpleasant.

No one is going to NOT admit you based on your pro-life views. If after such a "dreaded" question you weren't admitted, you have to think about other parts of your application. At most schools there are two+ faculty interviewers and a student interview. I really doubt every person is going to ask you about abortion. This question is a small part of yet another relatively small piece of the admissions pie.[/QUOTE]

It would be lovely it this were true, but it's not. The SUNYs, in particular, are famous for only taking applicants who anwer in accorandance with the interviewers' politics. Plus, it's only natural for peole to think better of those who agree with them. THis is fairly common knowledge, I think.

[/QUOTE]It sounds like you have pretty strong convictions so I'm sure you can come up with a good answer. If the patient's health is in danger, your duty is to her. If the patient's health is not necessarily in danger, go ahead, counsel and refer. Be consistent and don't be wishy-washy. These "Northeast" schools care about intelligence and poise as well, and if you can answer intelligently, showing that the patient's health is your ultimate concern, then I am sure your application will stand on its own merits.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I hope this will be the case.[/QUOTE]
Oh so the SUNYs only take people who agree with the interviewers take. What is your evidence?

 

[BozoSparky]

I think you're worrying too much.
8 interviews...0 mentions of abortion.

Same here, 8 interviews last year, nobody put me on the spot. Don't trip. Know how you feel, but don't worry about a correct answer.

 

[trustwomen]

As long as you are willing to refer to another physician, and keep your moralizing out of it, you have done your duty to the patient and no school worthy of the name should reject you because of it. I don't believe doctors should be forced to perform an abortion; it's a bad idea in many many ways.
I do take issue with GYNs who won't do them, because it really is an integral part of GYN health care; but the easy solution for this is for anti-abortion physicians to choose another specialty. Kinda like Jehovah's witnesses shouldn't be hematologists if they won't do transfusions, and scientologists shouldn't be psychiatrists if they won't dispense necessary meds. But I take no issue to them being physicians in other specialties, including family practice, and providing timely, adequate referrals when they encounter a situation contrary to their values.

As for the nearly-being-aborted thing, the logic fails. I was conceived when my parents decided to stop using contraception, because they wanted another child. If they had made the opposite choice, I wouldn't be here today. I'm not morally opposed to contraception because of this.

Then further down, I read "I'm pro-choice but I don't think it should be used as birth control". Poster, please reframe your statement to what you really mean: "I don't think women should have repeated unplanned pregnancies; I think they should use contraception instead". I'm sure you don't mean what your statement implies, which is: "After a certain number of abortions, irresponsible women should be forced to carry to term any subsequent unwanted pregnancies because a) I'm sure that they would be great moms and b) despite all evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that it would make them stop getting pregnant". Say it with me now: abortion is not the problem, unwanted pregnancy is the problem. To reduce abortion rates (which is a good goal, because it is preventable surgery), reduce unplanned pregnancy rates.

Unlike some, I think the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides, at least those in medicine, can find common ground: wider access to contraception; treating sexual activity as a health issue and not a moral issue; and reducing unplanned pregnancies (and therefore abortions as well).

 

[eastsidaz]

As for the nearly-being-aborted thing, the logic fails. I was conceived when my parents decided to stop using contraception, because they wanted another child. If they had made the opposite choice, I wouldn't be here today. I'm not morally opposed to contraception because of this.

The logic doesn't fail at all. Once conceived, in her view, she was a human being with an undeniable right to life. Pre-conception, no such right could be construed to exist.

Regarding the end of your post...the idea that society can separate health and morality is a silly media construct. Ultimately, everything is a moral issue.

 

[eastsidaz]

Arggh but please let's not let this turn into an abortion debate/flame war.

Maybe shouldn't have posted.

 

[BellyDancingDoc]

As for the nearly-being-aborted thing, the logic fails. I was conceived when my parents decided to stop using contraception, because they wanted another child. If they had made the opposite choice, I wouldn't be here today. I'm not morally opposed to contraception because of this.

Trustwomen, it is quite true that you would not be here had your parents used contracpetion, but this is not the same thing. I (or my fetal self, if you prefer) would have died in what we can surely all agree is a rather groteque procedure when you get down to what's physically happening to the fetal tissues, themselves. What's more, it might also have been an extremely painful death, depending on how old I was at the time of the procedure. I am unsure, though, how many months along my mother was when she discovered she was pregnant, so in fairness I'm unsure about the pain part. Still not beiing conceived is NOT the same thing as actively being destroyed.

As to pro-life people becomming OB/GYNS, I naturally couldn't agree less. Otherwise you wind up with no one in authority willing to argue the opposite (and I belive correct) viewpoint. An entire specialty in which only one opinion is acceptable is quite close-minded, no?

 

[BellyDancingDoc]

Arggh but please let's not let this turn into an abortion debate/flame war.

Maybe shouldn't have posted.

OK, you're probably right, East. I'm out.

 

[eastsidaz]

As for the nearly-being-aborted thing, the logic fails. I was conceived when my parents decided to stop using contraception, because they wanted another child. If they had made the opposite choice, I wouldn't be here today. I'm not morally opposed to contraception because of this.

Trustwomen, it is quite true that you would not be here had your parents used contractpetion, but this is not the same thing. I (or my fetal self, if you prefer) would have died in what we can surely all agree is a rather groteque procedure when you get down to what's physically happening to the fetal tissues, themselves. What's more, it might also have been an extremely painful death, depending on how old I was at the ime of the procedure. I am unsure, thouh, how many months along my mother was when she was pregnant, so in fairness I'm unsure about the pain part. Still not beiing conceived is NOT the same thing as actively being destroyed.

Understand that the reason s(he) thinks s(he) can use this logic is because, in the ideology of her/him, the fetal "you" wasn't you, but rather a mass of tissue devoid of ethical value; that is, perhaps a dependent organism, but not a person. Quite a presumption our society makes there when making policy.

 

[Rockhouse]

Yeah, I am confused too, why can't you be an OB/GYN and not perform elective abortions? I am nearly as pro-life as they come, and I am all cool with medically (i.e. ya'll are going to/have a good change of dying if we don't do it) necessary abortions. Certainly there is no important part of care for absolving someone of responsibility. Elective abortions are a lifestyle choice, and my patients can choose any lifestyle they want, I suppose, but why would you have to be a part of it to be a good OB/GYN?

 

[nikibean]

And, yes, these are VERY rough times to be pro-life in the Northeast. Everyone's up in arms about South Dakota, you see.

Everyone's up in arms over South Dakota because it doesn't allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest. Sorry, but I'm not going to force anyone to have to carry their brother's/uncle's/grandfather's/cousin's /father's child to term.

Hey listen, I happen to be VERY pro-choice, but I respect your viewpoint. I don't want to turn this into a flame war either. Just wanted to point out the issues with the South Dakota ruling.
I don't think you have much to worry about in interviewing. I work for Planned Parenthood and I wasn't even asked about the abortion issue- and I have the opposite issue: I thought I'd end up offending someone/be rejected because of his/her anti-choice status. (for ye anti-choice people, don't PM and flame me- be respectful, cool?).

So, don't worry about being anti-choice in your interviews. Just be yourself. And if you ever end up interviewing someone who is pro-choice, just remember how they might feel afraid, too, for their opinions.
Good luck.

Peace out.

 

[Rockhouse]

Everyone's up in arms over South Dakota because it doesn't allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest. Sorry, but I'm not going to force anyone to have to carry their brother's/uncle's/grandfather's/cousin's /father's child to term.

Hey listen, I happen to be VERY pro-choice, but I respect your viewpoint. I don't want to turn this into a flame war either. Just wanted to point out the issues with the South Dakota ruling.
I don't think you have much to worry about in interviewing. I work for Planned Parenthood and I wasn't even asked about the abortion issue- and I have the opposite issue: I thought I'd end up offending someone/be rejected because of his/her anti-choice status. (for ye anti-choice people, don't PM and flame me- be respectful, cool?).

So, don't worry about being anti-choice in your interviews. Just be yourself. And if you ever end up interviewing someone who is pro-choice, just remember how they might feel afraid, too, for their opinions.
Good luck.

Peace out.

I'll go ahead and step into the ring of fire on this one, but don't call it anti-choice. That isn't what we are all about, anymore than a pro-choice person is anti-life. For example, if i said "all you anti-life people, don't flame me, be respectful," I think I might expect poor response, cause it isn't about being anti-life or anti-choice, it is about thinking one thing (choice or life) is more important than the other in this circumstance.

 

[Rafa]

...cause it isn't about being anti-life or anti-choice, it is about thinking one thing (choice or life) is more important than the other in this circumstance.

You mean the life of the fetus. Not the life of the mother.

Just thought I'd help ward off any confusion there.

 

[Rockhouse]

You mean life of the fetus. Not life of the mother.

Just thought I'd help ward off any confusion there.

Exactly, and the choice of the mother, not the choice of the fetus.

 

[Law2Doc]

Personally, however, I would do nothing of the kind. If faced with that situation I would do only what was absolutely required of me by my hospital and by the law- which is probably to explain that my beliefs prevent me from providing that sort of care and referring elsewhere. And- if hospital policy would let me get away with it- I'd tell the girl my story and how I personally feel about this issue as an almost-abortee.

I kind of doubt that if you work in a place where elective abortions are performed, you will not be violating "hospital" policy by doing the above. But you can probably dodge this kind of practice your whole career if you stay far away from OB/GYN.
I did get asked a hypothetical with a juvenile requesting an abortion in one of my interviews. I doubt there was a required answer, but there certainly was a bias toward one answer. When in doubt, fall back on legal requirements and autonomy of the patient (mother).

 

[nikibean]

I'll go ahead and step into the ring of fire on this one, but don't call it anti-choice. That isn't what we are all about, anymore than a pro-choice person is anti-life. For example, if i said "all you anti-life people, don't flame me, be respectful," I think I might expect poor response, cause it isn't about being anti-life or anti-choice, it is about thinking one thing (choice or life) is more important than the other in this circumstance.

Understand, but here's why I chose those terms:
I don't want to start a flame war on this either, but the reason I call it "anti-choice" is because the phrase "pro-life" implies that those who are for legalized abortion are "anti-life" - and as you pointed out, that's not the case at all. Those who term themselves anti-abortion are against giving women that right to choose, hence they are "anti-choice" in my understanding, although not against all choices.
I know I know, the terminology isn't all that great for either camp. That's it. Not trying to start an argument, not trying to offend, just explaining.
Ahh this topic is so polemical. In any case, have a good day everyone. Thanks for being brave enough to post an opinion on something so personal and difficult. I really think this thread is a good one, even if I disagree with the opinions of posters here.
Alright, that's it.

 

[javert]

I wouldn't worry too much... I'm at a pretty liberal school and there are certainly pro-life people here that express their opinions strongly and there are both pro-choice and pro-life student groups... just because we're the Northeast and the majority of people are more likely to be pro-choice doesn't mean you'll be ostracized for being pro-life... especially in the interview setting... and any school that judges your admittance on where you stand on a political issue is ludacris... Good luck to you!

 

[Psychoanalyzed]

I'm pro-life and had this question asked twice. I simply said that if I were in that situation, I would try to talk with the girl/woman and find out all the background info, encourage her to talk to her parents, etc., and if she still wanted to have an abortion, then I would refer her to another physician.

None of my interviewers seemed to have a problem with this. I think its more important to sound confident in your answer (in the sense that you have really thought about this). I think that alot of these morality-type questions have more to do with seeing if YOU have really thought about this issue, rather than the content of your answer.

Read ur myspace profile..u do realize that ppl sometimes add ppl without reading the sidenotes?? Oh well, if you really hate being bothered that much, I suggest u delete the profile...its delete-able you know..

 

[odrade1]

If I had been aborted, I (as odrade today) would not have lost anything, and would not have known the difference. Who I am would not have existed, and would not have been around to have lost anything for being aborted. Sure, I (as odrade) wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that some real harm was done to me. If my parents had copulated at a different moment in time, or any number of things happened in my mother's pregnancy, there would not have been born a little baby odrade. This doesn't mean that I had a near-death experience at conception, or through gestation. Do you really believe that hell is full of the souls and minds of all the aborted (both medically and spontaneously) fetuses? If you don't believe in souls, it makes even less sense to talk about the losses of (unrealized) future goods to fetuses who are aborted.

You have to be sapient to be subjected to an experience of nearly ending up in a biohazard bag. Fetuses are not sapient. They cannot look forward to tomorrow, worry about the past, or feel badly about being aborted. Having a heart beat, or even brainwaves is not sufficient in this way. My dogs are alive, and have a moral status, but they are not sapient in the way that an adult human is. Fetuses are alive, and have a moral status, but they are not sapient in the way that an adult human is. The OP nearly didn’t exist (due to a close call) but the OP was not nearly killed. There was no there there, to begin with. Something was nearly killed (a fetus) but the OP was not nearly killed. The fetus lead to the OP, but the OP was not present when her mom was considering the abortion.

Obviously, pro-lifers will disagree with this view. However, if your view that the fetus is a person at conception is due to your religious leanings, you should remember that the reason for your belief is a mystical one. You are entitled to your mystical beliefs, but please recognize that the mystical belief in immediate personhood is a subjective moral view, and not the proper domain of public morality policy.

On a related, yet separate note:
I have always thought that Christians especially should be more willing to embrace a notion of personhood obtaining at early childhood (or at least early infancy). Remember that god gets to choose when people get their personhood/soul/whatever. Why not believe that he set it up in a way that minimizes souls in hell rather than maximizes the number of souls in hell? Later personhood (instead of immediate personhood) would be the world god would have chosen, had he/she an interest in reducing the number of souls in hell. Presumably, this would be a good thing. Why do I say this?

Bazillions of fetuses have been naturally (spontaneously) aborted through time, and according to the typical Christian view, these all have souls. Also the typical Christian view is that all humans are inherently sinful, and needing of salvation. This isn’t to say that we are innocent till we do something naughty, rather, we enter the universe from the moment of our creation, a broken thing in need of redemption. I don’t think Christians can coherently argue that fetuses aren’t sinful, if they are persons. Now, fetuses aren’t baptized (if you believe that saves them), nor are they old enough to either choose salvation (or if you are a Calvinist, to accept God’s offered grace).
Notice that if this is the way god set things up, he set things up in a way that packs the seats of hell with fetuses. (Which is, frankly, icky.) If you believe in the omnibenevolence of god, and you are trying to figure out his position on the obtaining of personhood in fetuses/babies/humans, then it is reasonable to believe that he puts the personhood in later, not sooner. The funny thing is that this immediate personhood idea is not the ancient, established Judeochristian view on the subject. It just happens to be the view that people are reading into scripture these days.
If I were to believe in god, it would have to be a god that doesn’t try to maximize the number of babies/children in hell. But then that’s just my view on the matter.

 

[Psychoanalyzed]

Hi all,

I usually post on this forum under another name, but these are rough times in which to be pro-life and- since schools have been known to visit these forums from time to time- I thought it'd be wise to post under a new name.

That said, I'm set to apply in the cycle of 2007. I'm also pro-life. In fact my mother very nearly chose to abort me (she gave me to another family instead), so as you can imagine I've very, VERY pro-life. Nearly ending up in a biohazard bag will have that effect on a person.

That said, I'm not sure what to do about the oh-so-common abortion question. The "proper" answer has been discussed at length in the Topics in Healthcare forum and was summarized by ofthesun as follows:



I would first attempt to confirm through conversation that she was competent to make the decision herself, ensuring there were no mental deficits or emotional imbalances that would prevent her from making proper informed consent.

Next, I would want to ensure that her request is not the product of her suffering any abuse, asking if she can tell me a little about her experience so far. I would encourage her, making sure she understood why I was asking. I would try my best to ensure she was in whatever sexual relationship she was entering for healthy reasons.

Following that, I would check if she has talked about this with her parents. If she would be comfortable with it, I would encourage her to bring them into the consideration. If not, I would ask if she has any other adult guardian that she would feel comfortable knowing, say an aunt of uncle or Big Brother or Sister.

If there was no one she felt she would be comfortable with getting support from, I would feel best contacting social services and bringing in someone to help her make this decision (only with her ok of course - forcing social services involvement would be equal to forcing parents I think.), so she doesn't feel like she rushed into a huge decision all by herself.

Lastly, I would want to confirm my legal obligations with a lawyer or ethics council.

Barring any unforeseen circumstances along the way, I would then prescribe whatever birth control/ abortion.

Personally, however, I would do nothing of the kind. If faced with that situation I would do only what was absolutely required of me by my hospital and by the law- which is probably to explain that my beliefs prevent me from providing that sort of care and referring elsewhere. And- if hospital policy would let me get away with it- I'd tell the girl my story and how I personally feel about this issue as an almost-abortee.

So the question is: what do I do about interviews? As I see it, I have 3 options:

1) Tell the truth. But my telling the truth seems unlikely to result in admittance given the current political climate in the Northeast (where I live).
2) Lie through my teeth, give the answer posted above, and try not to hate myself.
2) Choose to apply only to schools that do not report abortion questions in
the Feedback section of SDN. This what I'm currently planning, but it seems awfully craptacular to have to limit myself to schools based on this issue.

Thoughts?

Hey I was nearly aborted too and considering how I was raised, I often wondered why I wasn't aborted. Maybe I would not have gone through the hell I went through as a child..and that is just as a child. Of course I am grown now, and I am still grateful for my life but if I had been aborted, i would be none the wiser..so wtf. Anyway, I am not anti abortion or pro abortion..depends on the circumstances. if someone was raped and having the child means they are going to hate the kid forever but don't want to give the kid up because they want to be able to hate on the kid..then by all means, abort the baby before birth..but if one is a promiscuous person who did not remember to use protection, that person should not be encouraged to abort. They wanna have unprotected sex (or failed protection) then, they gotta learn to be parents or go through the heart ache of giving the baby away. Again, just my opinions.....

 

[jebus]

They wanna have unprotected sex (or failed protection) then, they gotta learn to be parents or go through the heart ache of giving the baby away. Again, just my opinions.....

Are the real victims the parents?

 

[lynn42]

I must tell you that out of 10 interviews, I was never asked any question relating to abortion. Chances are you won't be asked questions about abortion. With that said, I think you should NOT lie!! Stick up for what you believe. During the interview, however, don't come across as an extremist who doesn't value other people's opinions. Stay open, but strategically display your beliefs. Say, for example: "I believe that physicians have the responsibility to prolong life, not shorten it. We are asked to take an oath that says 'above all do no harm.' I personally am not comfortable with the idea of shortening a life of a human. However, I understand why women chose to have abortions." I hope that helps.

 

[Marie_]

Hi Tricky,

I was in a very similar situation (almost-aborted for the birth defects I was supposed to, but didn't have) and like you, I am against it. I was never asked the abortion question, but if I had been I would tell them the truth. I don't think it will cost you, but if it does the school is probably not for you to begin with.

Good luck with your applications!!!!

 

[Marie_]

I must tell you that out of 10 interviews, I was never asked any question relating to abortion. Chances are you won't be asked questions about abortion. With that said, I think you should NOT lie!! Stick up for what you believe. During the interview, however, don't come across as an extremist who doesn't value other people's opinions. Stay open, but strategically display your beliefs. Say, for example: "I believe that physicians have the responsibility to prolong life, not shorten it. We are asked to take an oath that says 'above all do no harm.' I personally am not comfortable with the idea of shortening a life of a human. However, I understand why women chose to have abortions." I hope that helps.

wow, that was well put

 

[Psychoanalyzed]

Are the real victims the parents?

 

[Psychoanalyzed]

Are the real victims the parents?

seeing how sometimes the kids enjoy a better life with adoptive parents, and some parents have nightmares for the rest of their lives, it could swing both ways.

 

[Rockhouse]

Oh, suppose I forgot to mention. I was asked the abortion question, twice. I think specifically asked because I plan on working in a small town where everybody knows everyone elses business. I said something about being a teacher as well as a scientist, explaining options, but alas your choice but I won't be the one doing it. I did get in a both schools, so I suppose either the interviewers agreed with me, or didn't "discriminate." You'll be alright

 

[jrae]

DOn't lie, state what you believe, just try and show that you've given the issue thought.

As someone who hopes to be in the admissions arena someday I would say that my biggest pet peeve is when people use religious rhetoric as a means to justify their opinion (ie "the Bible/insert religious text says it's wrong" instead of "I believe life starts ___ and therefore it's wrong"). I think that when you are involved with people from diverse backgrounds logic and reasoning should rule, not religion. That's my 2 cents.

 

[Flopotomist]

I think the OP was asking how to handle this question as an interviewee - I don't think the OP was asking for us to rehash a bunch of tired arguments on both sides of this issue.

I was never asked this question during an interview, but if asked a tricky question that you aren't comfortable with, consider doing what politicians do - artfully dodge the question, then turn the question around with a question of your own.

 

[TrickyIssues]

I think the OP was asking how to handle this question as an interviewee - I don't think the OK was asking for us to rehash a bunch of tired arguments on both sides of this issue.

I was never asked this question during an interview, but if asked a tricky question that you aren't comfortable with, consider doing what politicians do - artfully dodge the question, then turn the question around with a question of your own.

Thank you, Flop. That was indeed what I was looking for.

 

[TrickyIssues]

Dude,

Ummm... I think you're overthinking.

How about: I'm scared that being aborted would have hurt?

How about: I hate knowing that my mother not only didn't love me, not only didn't want me, but actually seriously considered paying someone to destroy me? (That having been said, my adoptive family loves me very much and I love them. 'Twas far better to grow up with them than ne'er grow up at all!)

How about: it's not necessary to be Christian to think a fetus should have a moral status- Hippocrates included a prohibition again abortion in the original Hippocratic oath (Google it).

Seesh, give a girl a little leeway to have a certain degree of attachment to her life.

If I had been aborted, I (as odrade today) would not have lost anything, and would not have known the difference. Who I am would not have existed, and would not have been around to have lost anything for being aborted. Sure, I (as odrade) wouldn't be here today, but that doesn't mean that some real harm was done to me. If my parents had copulated at a different moment in time, or any number of things happened in my mother's pregnancy, there would not have been born a little baby odrade. This doesn't mean that I had a near-death experience at conception, or through gestation. Do you really believe that hell is full of the souls and minds of all the aborted (both medically and spontaneously) fetuses? If you don't believe in souls, it makes even less sense to talk about the losses of (unrealized) future goods to fetuses who are aborted.

You have to be sapient to be subjected to an experience of nearly ending up in a biohazard bag. Fetuses are not sapient. They cannot look forward to tomorrow, worry about the past, or feel badly about being aborted. Having a heart beat, or even brainwaves is not sufficient in this way. My dogs are alive, and have a moral status, but they are not sapient in the way that an adult human is. Fetuses are alive, and have a moral status, but they are not sapient in the way that an adult human is. The OP nearly didn’t exist (due to a close call) but the OP was not nearly killed. There was no there there, to begin with. Something was nearly killed (a fetus) but the OP was not nearly killed. The fetus lead to the OP, but the OP was not present when her mom was considering the abortion.

Obviously, pro-lifers will disagree with this view. However, if your view that the fetus is a person at conception is due to your religious leanings, you should remember that the reason for your belief is a mystical one. You are entitled to your mystical beliefs, but please recognize that the mystical belief in immediate personhood is a subjective moral view, and not the proper domain of public morality policy.

On a related, yet separate note:
I have always thought that Christians especially should be more willing to embrace a notion of personhood obtaining at early childhood (or at least early infancy). Remember that god gets to choose when people get their personhood/soul/whatever. Why not believe that he set it up in a way that minimizes souls in hell rather than maximizes the number of souls in hell? Later personhood (instead of immediate personhood) would be the world god would have chosen, had he/she an interest in reducing the number of souls in hell. Presumably, this would be a good thing. Why do I say this?

Bazillions of fetuses have been naturally (spontaneously) aborted through time, and according to the typical Christian view, these all have souls. Also the typical Christian view is that all humans are inherently sinful, and needing of salvation. This isn’t to say that we are innocent till we do something naughty, rather, we enter the universe from the moment of our creation, a broken thing in need of redemption. I don’t think Christians can coherently argue that fetuses aren’t sinful, if they are persons. Now, fetuses aren’t baptized (if you believe that saves them), nor are they old enough to either choose salvation (or if you are a Calvinist, to accept God’s offered grace).
Notice that if this is the way god set things up, he set things up in a way that packs the seats of hell with fetuses. (Which is, frankly, icky.) If you believe in the omnibenevolence of god, and you are trying to figure out his position on the obtaining of personhood in fetuses/babies/humans, then it is reasonable to believe that he puts the personhood in later, not sooner. The funny thing is that this immediate personhood idea is not the ancient, established Judeochristian view on the subject. It just happens to be the view that people are reading into scripture these days.
If I were to believe in god, it would have to be a god that doesn’t try to maximize the number of babies/children in hell. But then that’s just my view on the matter.