Email

Proposed abortion laws threaten doctors' rights

By Eamonn Mathieson

Posted October 2, 2008 08:33:00

The anti-conscience clause in Victoria's new Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008 is extreme and unprecedented. Even the ACT, which has the most liberal abortion legislation in the country, includes a provision to safeguard the rights of health professionals to refuse to participate in abortions.

This extraordinary attempt by pro-abortion legislators to coerce health professionals to participate in the taking of human life is an unconscionable attack on their human rights.

Under this proposed legislation many health practitioners will find their practices under threat if they are unwilling to advise or perform an abortion or refer for abortion. The right to conscientious objection by professional health practitioners in the state of Victoria will be severely curtailed.

Such a provision is contrary to the codes of ethics of the AMA, the Royal Australian College of Nursing and the National Health and Medical Research Council. It is also in breach of section 14 of Victoria's Charter of Human rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

This misguided and unethical provision reflects how poorly drafted this legislation is. It relies on the false premise that "abortion is just like any medical procedure". Only euthanasia and medically assisted executions share the same intent and objective: the direct taking of human life. It bases its framework on an incorrect definition of abortion. It defines abortion as "intentionally causing the termination of a woman's pregnancy". This is incorrect. This would include inducing a live birth prematurely for serious health risks and the management of ectopic pregnancies. This flawed definition enables the creation of the clinical fiction of "emergency abortions". And it is this misleading category that gives the apparent justification to the coercion of health professionals to participate in abortions.

The management of complicated and life-threatening obstetric cases does not necessitate the direct and active killing of the unborn. The indirect and unintended loss of life of an unborn child in early pregnancy resulting from the management of serious maternal health risk is not an abortion per se. And attempting to deliver a live birth late in pregnancy is always the safer option in emergency or high risk situations. Suicidal risk for a pregnant woman is a psychiatric emergency, not a surgical or abortion emergency. In almost all clinical situations the management of maternal health risk need not involve the consideration of an abortion.

In this way, despite claims by legislators their legislation does not reflect a competent grasp of the realities of current clinical practice.

Regarding the rights of doctors to refuse to participate in the process of abortion by refusing to refer "to another whom the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion". The legislation relies on the mistaken advice given by the VLRC that Victoria would be following a precedent in the United Kingdom. This is just one of several incorrect and misleading recommendations given by the VLRC which have gone unchallenged. It reveals the flawed process in which VLRC recommendations are not open to public scrutiny and expert criticism following their release and prior to legislation being framed around it.

Only last week a UK doctor received confirmation from the General Medical Council that he was acting according to professional medical rules by conscientiously objecting to participating in abortions through referral.

The issue of objecting to referral for abortion seems to confound some people. If the word 'abortion' was substituted with 'euthanasia' or 'female circumcision' it is perhaps easier to see the issue. If these practices were legal and the state compelled doctors to refer, despite their conscientious objection and against their clinical judgement, to known 'euthanasists' or 'genital mutilators' the issue of participation is perhaps more evident.

This point was made in a recent letter by AMA president Dr Doug Travis to Premier John Brumby:

The Bill infringes the rights of doctors with a conscientious objection by inserting an active compulsion for a doctor to refer to another doctor who they know does not have a conscientious objection. Respect for a conscientious objection is a fundamental principle in our democratic country, and doctors expect that their rights in this regard will be respected, as for any other citizen.

It was also a point made recently in Ontario, Canada, when an attempt to override doctors' rights to conscientiously object was defeated. Rabbi Reuven Bulka stated, "Referring is just a way of sloughing off your responsibility ? If you're opposed to these things, referring is the same as taking part in the evil."

Not only should the state protect the lives of its citizens, it should also protect the rights of health professionals not to participate in killing against their will. The Legislative Council should reject this legislation and the legislators should return to the drawing board and start again.

Dr Eamonn Mathieson is an obstetric anaesthetist and a member of the Doctors in Conscience Against Abortion Bill group.

Tags: health, doctors-and-medical-professionals, abortion, law-crime-and-justice, laws, human-rights, australia, vic

Comments (103)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Ford:

  02 Oct 2008 8:54:34am

  Whilst I'm pro-choice, I still think people who, for whatever reason, don't wish to participate in the abortion process should be legally forced to go against their own conscience.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • thelonenut:

    02 Oct 2008 9:29:24am

    Ford, I think your post has been the victim of a typo - it appears you are saying conscientious objectors should not be legally co-erced into giving up their beliefs and principles. I heartily agree - this concept is one of the cornerstones of Democracy, and indeed, Human Rights . I am also pro-choice.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • PaulB:

    02 Oct 2008 9:30:14am

    
    Ford,
    
    I disagree with you. Doctors have absolutely no right to refuse to give their patients the best possible treatment, or to refer the patient to an appropriate practitioner, because they, the doctor, hold an unflinching belief in ghosts, UFO's, Santa Clause or any other number of gods. If they refuse treatment or referal, take away their licences & careers.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sopwith:

      02 Oct 2008 9:42:35am

      PaulB,
      
      That's just rubbish. The issue of abortion involves two lives -- it's not just a matter of the woman's body. That's what makes the issue different from any other medical issue. Precisely the point the author made.
      
      How would you feel if I forced you to participate in something that you found profoundly WRONG (for whatever reason) and denied you the right to opt-out??
      
      This is just another example of the pro-choice movement not knowing where to stop or where to draw the line.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        02 Oct 2008 10:08:50am

        Lets turn this around.
        
        If abortion were illegal, would you think it right that a doctor performed them because the doctors morals dictated they should do so?

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • thelonenut:

        02 Oct 2008 10:33:00am

        Some of the posts here have rightly pointed out that this issue is vastly different from an "ordinary" medical dilemma, such as wether to prescribe anti-depressants or antibiotics when the doctor feels it is unnecessary.
        In this case human life is involved - I happen to believe that human life is sacred, but that it is NOT the most sacred thing in the Universe - I think humans and their lives and their opinions and ideas and feelings are highly overrated. However, I won't push this barrel here on this post -
        
        
        While I worked at Centrelink, I had no choice but to implement odious and inhumane legislation because these were the terms of my employment. When I could no longer live with myself, I quit and got another job.
        A doctor, however, should not be forced to quit his/her career because he /she does not wish to perform abortions. If, however, the terms of their employment require them to do so, then it is up to the employer to take some action, with the doctor having the usual recourse to dismissal legislation.
        
        But it is a valid point that women who live in relatively isolated areas , and who cannot afford it, may not have the luxury of a second opinion - what happens in this case, when the doctor refuses to perform an abortion and is also unable to refer her on? A dilemma beyond my capacity to even suggest a solution for .....

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • steven:

        02 Oct 2008 10:53:21am

        Just because an activity is legal doesnt mean that must do it or that we must facilitate others tro do things that arte dangerous.
        
        I am a not smoker and a strong opponent of smoking. It may be legal but I refuse to lend money for cigarettes, lend my car,or even stop the car if we are travelling for cigarettes. If I own a shop should I be forced to sell cigareettes or to direct someone to a shop selling them. I see abortion as more dangerous than smoking.
        
        It is also not illegal in this society to decieve, lie, commit adultary, drink to excess. I agree that to assist or facilitate is equally as bad

        Agree (2) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        02 Oct 2008 11:21:49am

        So that is a yes? If abortion were illegal you would support doctors performing abortions because that is what their morals dictate they do steven?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • NT boy:

        02 Oct 2008 12:13:28pm

        UUmmmm ... It is illegal to drink to excess in Australia, just to much paperwork for police to fill out for such a minor misdemeanour.
        
        But back to the point - Australia as a nation has made a moral choice to allow abortion - therefore any doctor that doesnt offer or advise clients wishing to know about aborting an unwanted pregnancy is going against the moral stand of the country.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Somewhat Perplexed:

      02 Oct 2008 10:24:05am

      I think doctors have every right to administer medicine as the see fit. They are not robots. The do however have a ethical responsibility to clearly and truthfully explain their postion on this as well as all things medical. When I meet a doctor who doesnt do that, I will let you know.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Merlin 23 :

      02 Oct 2008 11:36:04am

      Bullshit.
      
      Doctor/paitient relationships are a two way street. I'm sure PaulB would have a different response if it was the paitent's beliefs being ignored.
      
      Doctors should have the right not to perform any medical procedure that they have an issue with. At the same time they should refer thier patient to another doctor.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Pete:

        02 Oct 2008 12:02:43pm

        I agree.
        
        There will always be some doctor who will do what you want. Just look at some of the disasters that unfold in cosmetic surgery!
        
        For many people the idea of abortion is abhorrent. And some of these people are doctors. Indeed, I believe that this piece of legislation could be unconstitutional because it directly and profoundly threatens a persons religous beliefs.
        
        If a doctor trully believes that the unborn have rights and are sacred, then there is no way that he or she should be forced to act against those beliefs. Moreover, they should be able to assert thier moral and religous rights without fear of conviction.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • NT boy:

        02 Oct 2008 12:15:35pm

        They can avoid it by Referring people to a doctor who will give them an abortion - what is the problem

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeremy:

    02 Oct 2008 11:05:15am

    This is soooooooooooooooooo trivial. Referring people to a doctor who will give them an abortion is barely participation. How long would it take to call up doctors and hospitals yourself to find one - 5 minutes? You could probably do it in 30 seconds with a google as well.
    
    In no way will doctors who oppose abortions and refer people to doctors who do not change the number of abortions that occur. They will simply save a minuscule and insignificant amount of time for their patient.
    
    The criticism of this insignificant part of the legislation is clearly an attempt by the anti-choice people to hijack and sideline the legislation completely so that they can enforce their irrational and unscientific superstitious beliefs on the rest of us.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Pete:

      02 Oct 2008 12:18:45pm

      Jeremy, what about their rights?
      
      These profesionals should be able to assert their moral rights and beliefs without fear of conviction. We are not talking about some trivial medical matter.
      
      For many people the unborn have rights and/or are sacred. These beliefs are usualy tightly wound up with their religous beliefs. You are proposing that these things don't matter in the slightest. Indeed you judge such people to be irrational and superstitious. (How you get through 4-6 years of med school being irrational and superstitious is a wonder to me!)
      
      Well these people have rights and these rights are one of the most important corner stones of our system of goverment and way of life. These rights are certainly not trivial and go to the heart of living in a fair and decent society. Indeed I believe this particular part of the proposed legislation could run counter to other laws and may indeed be unconstitutional.
      
      We, as a fair and resonable society can not force another individual to act against his or her moral beliefs. If we did then we could force Jews to eat pork, stop muslims from praying five times a day and cancel all christian holidays. But I guess this all sounds a bit trivial to you.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Yabbie:

    02 Oct 2008 12:09:02pm

    Its a good law change.
    
    What this law does, is assures that a Drs own belief system does not impact on the rights of the person they are supposed to be advocating for.
    
    A Dr is not going against their conscience when they refuse to do a proceedure, yet respect the clients wishes and re-refer as they have not done the proceedure and it is the clients right for a second oppinion.
    
    In fact, for a Dr to deny re-referal, to refuse the wishes of their client and neglect their role as advocate, on the basis of their own belief system, would be extremely immoral.
    
    
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Twojays:

  02 Oct 2008 8:56:19am

  This is outrageous. Abortion is murder, what about the rights of the unborn child? What about the rights of doctors who object to this barbaric and draconian destruction of the unborn child? All the while, the liberal lefties scream about the rights to murder and inflict psychological trauma on women for years to come. Hypocrites!

  Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • NT boy:

    02 Oct 2008 9:26:27am

    Get over it... It is an acceptable practice in the western world, if you don't like it go live in the 3rd world.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Toxi:

    02 Oct 2008 9:26:50am

    Please tell me twojays that you are joking.
    
    I know a well respected doctor who stopped practacing wihin in a catholic hospital as he was unable to perform a termination that was vital to the mothers health.
    
    An individual Doctor should have the right to refuse to perform certain surgery's but they should be honest with the patiant and refer them to a doctor that will assist with the required procedure.
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • PaulB:

    02 Oct 2008 9:54:48am

    A selection of points -
    
    Principles of a Progressive Medical Response:
    
    1. The welfare of the patient must be at the center of medical decision-making and treatment.
    2. The religious/moral beliefs of a caregiver or religious doctrine of a health care institution cannot be allowed to obstruct a patient's access to care.
    3. Patients must be able to make treatment decisions based on accurate medical information and their own ethical or religious beliefs.
    
    Protecting Patients' Rights: Five Key Principles
    
    1. A patient's right to informed consent must be paramount. No information may be withheld.
    2. Health care institutions must provide emergency care immediately, without exception.
    3. For non-emergency care, referrals must be made if treatment is refused.
    4. The ability of non-objecting health practitioners to serve their patients must be safeguarded. No physician "gag rules" should be allowed.
    5. Institutional treatment restrictions must be disclosed to patients in advance.
    

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Two Patients:

      02 Oct 2008 10:45:40am

      I note the first principle of the Progressive Medical Response is the welfare of the patient. In this instance, a pregnancy, who is the patient? Are there not in fact two patient's and this is well the complications lay.
      
      It is not clear cut, and to assume so is ignorant. Are health profession is vital, should we lose doctors and other practitioners as a consequence of forcing them to behave contrary to their consicence in this very controversial area of medicine, then the public will be the ones who suffer.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        02 Oct 2008 10:54:01am

        It fairly clear cut in the first trimester.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • PaulB:

        02 Oct 2008 11:16:55am

        
        Not according to the law or science. Just in the minds of those opposed to womens reproductive independence. Could it survive out of the womb unaided? No.
        
        Now, God doesn't seem particularly concerned with these little collections of cells. He "murders" 100's of millions of them every year, far more than women exercising their rights to do the same. I hope you're going to chastise jebus & his dad, when you kneel down tonight, to pray.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • sillyfilly:

    02 Oct 2008 10:55:09am

    So what do you do for women who fall pregnant due to rape, paedophilia etc. Do you maintain your rage for no abortions and ignore the inevitable physcological trauma visited on these women through no fault of their own, purely because of some fanciful teachings of a religious doctrine. Yeah, real helpful!!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Brad:

      02 Oct 2008 11:39:37am

      Or where proceeding would inevitably result in the slow and painful death of the mother, e.g. ectopic pregnancy.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • WAKEUP:

        02 Oct 2008 12:25:54pm

        
        Brad, review your facts. Death if it occurs from an ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy in tube) results from acute haemorrhage when the tube bursts & is therefore rapid not slow and painful as you state.
        Medical intervention to remove the tube involved is not referred to as abortion, as the primary intent of the doctor is not to kill the growing baby (although this is unfortunately a secondary effect).

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • otherside:

      02 Oct 2008 11:44:11am

      What does how the foetus was conceived have to do with how we treat it, a foetus either is a human worthy of protection or is not yet a human there by allowing us to terminate it.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeremy:

    02 Oct 2008 11:23:28am

    You demonstrate what's going on here very well by not commenting on what's actually being debated at all (whether doctors should have to give referrals or not) and instead commenting on the aim of this trivial criticism, which is to oppose the rights for anybody to have abortions under any circumstance.
    
    Don't religious people try to tell us that their religions give them morals? And yet they use this duplicitous method of opposing something...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• DeepFritz:

  02 Oct 2008 9:00:35am

  Get the rosaries off the ovaries.
  
  Jeepers, around 60% of fertilized eggs naturally don't end up implanting and going full term for starters.
  
  Why if it is humans is it an abortion and if it is a chicken, it is an omelete?
  
  This whole - pro-life movement, you aren't pro life - you are ANTI WOMEN and their right to CHOOSE!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Just me:

    02 Oct 2008 10:43:31am

    What about the babies' rights to choose?
    
    Humans aren't chickens.

    Agree (2) Alert moderator

    • Brad:

      02 Oct 2008 11:40:44am

      Children don't have rights to make their own decisions until they turn 18. Until then, parents have the absolute right to make decisions for their offspring, before or after birth.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• NT boy:

  02 Oct 2008 9:06:46am

  I have heard of women who have wanted an abortion and her doctor stalled and missed appointments until it was too late because "He" believed she should carry the child. This is unacceptable.
  
  If some Christian doctors wont accept abortion as an option for their patient then they should be de listed as doctors. Their job is to ensure the health and well being of their patient. I believe the patient would be the woman...

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Woz:

    02 Oct 2008 10:57:27am

    Who said that this had anything to do with Christianity? Who says that only Christian Doctors would object to performing an abortion? Haven't you ever hear of anyone other than Chtistians objecting to abortions?
    
    A Doctor should not be forced into abortions if he/she has any objections. Abortion is the equivalent of murder, the only difference is the size of the person.
    
    Finally, very rarely is abortion required to ensure the health and well being of the patient. That's why it's always been called "choice".

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • peter69:

      02 Oct 2008 11:35:35am

      it is not the equivalant of Murder. Murder is a law (not a moral judgement) and in this country you will not go to jail for Murder performing an Abortion.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Brad:

      02 Oct 2008 11:42:17am

      It's not murder. Murder is illegal. Abortion is not.
      
      A doctor is NOT being forced into performing an abortion. The doctor who does not wish to perform an abortion on the grounds of conscience is only being required to refer a patient to another doctor who will.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• G:

  02 Oct 2008 9:10:47am

  This "article" is typical pro-life crap. Firstly the author's disclosure should be posted at the top of the page, under the by-line, informing readers that it is a piece of advertising for the pro-life movement, not an objective piece of journalism.
  
  Secondly, when I visit a health professional I want the advice given to me to be based on scientific evidence, not the religious beliefs/world view of the health professional. There should be legislation to make health professionals disclose the reason for advising for/against a procedure if it is not purely on health grounds. i.e. "I do not think you should have procedure X because I find it morally reprehensible".

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Sopwith:

    02 Oct 2008 9:34:49am

    G, do you realise the irony here? You're stating your opinion based on your own moral viewpoint. Yet the legislation will essentially deny a doctor to engage in the right you have just practiced.
    
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      02 Oct 2008 9:50:48am

      No, they can stop being doctors if it means that much to them.
      
      Think of it this way, do you think its ok for doctors to not prescribe the pill to women who ask for it if the doctor thinks contraception is morally wrong?
      
      Do you think doctors should be allowed to diagnose and treat patients in general based on what their morals rather than science?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Sopwith:

        02 Oct 2008 10:08:35am

        Firstly, you seem to elevate science above morals. The vast majority of laws in our society are based on morals -- not science. Science is great but it ain't the basis for building a society. Moral viewpoints are important.
        
        Secondly, your example of the pill is invalid because it doesn't involve a second living, beating heart (the baby's). That's what makes abortion different.
        
        Likewise NTBoy's example below of a waitress. It's faulty logic.
        
        I just wish some pro-choice advocates would have the guts to say "Yes, we are advocating deliberately killing a baby in the womb" rather than the misleading and deceptive portrayal of abortion as just another medical procedure.
        
        

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        02 Oct 2008 10:18:10am

        Well yes when im seeing a doctor, im their for a scientist, not a moral philosopher. I doubt I am alone in that.
        
        The logical flaw is yours, you are looking for moral differences between contraception and abortion. Thats not what the example is about. It is about whether a doctor should have a right to act according to his/her morals in all cases, or just the ones where you happen to agree with the doctors moral conundrum?
        
        There is a large difference between a feotus in early stages of pregnancy and a fully developed baby.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Sopwith:

        02 Oct 2008 10:54:16am

        Patch, you point out that "There is a large difference between a feotus in early stages of pregnancy and a fully developed baby."
        
        When most people think abortion, they think "up to 12 weeks".
        
        The proposed law in VIC allows abortion up to 24 weeks for ANY reason. After 24 weeks the conditions proposed are so loose and open-ended that there will effectively be nothing to stop an abortion being performed at 38 weeks. Do you realise that?
        
        Maybe that's why some doctors feel so strongly about this issue...

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • steven:

        02 Oct 2008 11:01:42am

        No it is about scientific prinicples about when Life begins and what a doctor beleives what is the correct course of action. If you have a medical condition there will be many options available that the doctor can advise. One doctor will say one thing, another doctor will say another. There is no one coirrect answer and no doctor is giving a "wrong answer". If a doctor believes that abortion is worng because he believes it is killing a human life and believes the mothers health is not in risk then he is doing what he beleives is right. Should a doctor be forced to send a patient to a natropath or faith healer who the doctor thinks is wrong and dangerous.
        
        Diuring the Nazis, it was legal to euthanise the mentally disabled, the physically handicapped. Should those doctors have been forced (as they were) to refer those people on to doctors who would do this..?
        
        It is purely a matter of defination of what is human and when life begins and be very careful where you draw that line

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • NT boy:

        02 Oct 2008 10:29:29am

        The difference is who's morals are we talking about.. The doctors or the patient? -
        
        Yes we are a moral society and as such have made a moral decision to make abortions legal.
        
        Why should a doctor who bucks the norm be allowed to judge the morals of a patient.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • steven:

        02 Oct 2008 11:38:20am

        The doctor is not judging the morals of the paitent or inflicting his morals on her. Theyare is simply acting out of thier own moral postion in a passive manner. If they attempted to tei the woman up, to lock her away to force her to have the baby then they are.
        
        It is a dangerous postion to say that a person having a passive moral postion to your own simply by existing, inpinges, denigrates and prevents you having your own. You start heading down the same path the Muslim (and other) fundamentalist follow
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • NT boy:

        02 Oct 2008 12:26:24pm

        But who is to say the doctors moral choice out weighs that of their patients..
        If the doctor has a moral dilemma then they must refer the client on to a doctor who doesnt let a moralistic stance cloud their judgement. This is what the legislation will do. - hence the moralistic doctor is off the hook.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Oz:

        02 Oct 2008 11:04:54am

        Firstly
        
        "the vast majority of laws in our society are based on morals -- not science"
        
        Hence why we don't have freedom.
        
        "Secondly, your example of the pill is invalid because it doesn't involve a second living, beating heart (the baby's). That's what makes abortion different."
        
        If has to rely on a host for life support where it can't live on it's own, that makes it technically a parasite.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Sopwith:

        02 Oct 2008 11:15:54am

        "If has to rely on a host for life support where it can't live on it's own, that makes it technically a parasite."
        
        The proposed law in VIC allows for abortion way beyond the point where a child can survive out side the womb.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • steven:

        02 Oct 2008 11:48:25am

        I know of children who cannot breath feed or move for themselves and rely totally on care by normally thier parents. Some of them have the mental capacity of a fetus of abortable age. By your defination they are parasites. Should the host be allowed to retrospectively abort these chidlren or adults because it is affecting thier life choices or health?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jeremy:

        02 Oct 2008 11:07:58am

        So do you support abortion within the first 5 weeks of conception, since there is no beating heart at this time?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • NT boy:

      02 Oct 2008 9:52:08am

      there is no irony - the doctors moral viewpoint shouldn't come it to it.. should a vegetarian waitress refuse to take an order for a steak? no.. so a doctor should not put their belief's before that of their paitents well being. If a patient wants medical information on abortion so they can make their own choice the the doctor should give it or not see the patient in the first place..

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• ravensclaw:

  02 Oct 2008 9:19:10am

  I am pro abortion, but anti abortion on demand.
  
  In many cases the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn conflict. There will always be an ethical issue with this. It will never go away.
  
  If doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners don't want to participate in this practice, they should not be forced to. Their obligation should end by referring the patient to another appropriate medical practitioner.
  
  Like it or lump it, some abortions are abortions of convenience. I can absolutely sympathise if some medical practitioners want no part of that.
  
  Being anti abortion on demand is not anti women, it is pro responsibility for one's actions. Note abortion due to age, mental health, rape, incest or other risks are of coruse a different story. Abortion is also not just a women's issue, it is a society issue, and certainly an issue for unborns who can't speak for themselves.
  
  Cheers

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • steven:

    02 Oct 2008 11:08:50am

    I unfortutnately see as well that abortion is not being a health issue but a lifestyle or comfort decsion. If the life and physcial health is threatened and in exceptional situations when the emotional health is threatened is one matter. But I have seen a defination of mental health threatened as being the fact the mother doenst want to be pregnant
    
    If you dont want to have babies for both men and women, dont have sex. Simple. If women demand control over the amount of children they have, extend this to men and give them the choice of having a responsiblity abortion with respect to the child. At the moment the women have the choice and the men have only the the responsibility to pay.
    
    Otherwise, lets increase the funding and focus on developing articifial wombs that will make real choice a possibilitry

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Dave A:

  02 Oct 2008 9:21:43am

  If a doctor won't agree to even referrals, then fine. But they are then ineligible for government assistance, tax breaks, subsidies etc. If you don't want to be in the system, then don't be. If you're patients are happy to pay a far higher price for your service then you'll be fine.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• lookbothways:

  02 Oct 2008 9:25:39am

  While it is true that the bill requires referral "to another whom the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion", it does not say HOW such referrals can be given. It is therefore possible for the doctor to ring his/her colleagues and see who would do such procedure (what, the doctor doesn't get paid to ring their colleagues, what a shame...). By NOT referring the patient on, the doctor is holding their personal feelings ahead of their professional obligations to look after their patients. This would be no different having a health minister withholding RU 486 because of his reglious beliefs. In both instances, the interests of the patient should be of primary concern.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Patch:

  02 Oct 2008 9:34:11am

  You know an article is going to be crap when pro choice legislators are labelled pro-abortion.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • steven:

    02 Oct 2008 11:15:49am

    "Pro-choice" is a weael word euphermism and one of the greatest spin sucesses.
    People who seek a liberalisation of the drug laws are "pro-choice" I can be pro-choice with respect to heroin or speed. Pro-choice with respect to speed limits, marriage monagomy, smoking in fact a lot of isses. In some issues there is no sitting on the fence

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      02 Oct 2008 11:51:17am

      Rubbish.
      
      I am not pro abortion, I dont understand why anybody would be. Do you think people get pregnant just so they can skip merrily down the street to get an abortion?
      
      I am pro choice ie. I am for the right of a woman to choose whether or not they will keep the baby or abort it. Pro choice is perfectly valid.
      
      Pro abortion is the spin here, in order to make pro choice people seem like demons.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Clownfish:

  02 Oct 2008 9:45:40am

  This article is deliberately misleading.
  
  The legislation requires that if a patient requests an abortion and the doctor concerned refuses to perform it, then they must refer the patient to another doctor who will.
  
  Construing this as forcing the first doctor to be a participant in an abortion is drawing an incredibly long bow.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • steven:

    02 Oct 2008 11:26:37am

    A person goes to a doctor and says I want you to euthanase my mentally handicapped child. The doctor knows the person is under stress and says no I cant do this but here is a doctor who will. The child is killed and this is found out, is the first doctor in any way culperable or considered to have any responsibility. Yes he is and we would see it as more than a legal issue
    
    The above is abhorent to a lot of people however there have been times in the past when this has occurred and is still occurring (We were put under a large amount of presure to allow a disabled child to die through withdrawl of medical treatment).
    
    If a law was passed tomorrow that enabled parents to have disabled children euthanased, what would we expect of a doctor why should we expect any difference in the doctors behaviour. To some medical practitoners there is no difference between abortion and the murder of a person who is vunerable and in the past they have been persecuted for this (Nazi Germanys policy of eugenics) and in many ways our socieity is made stronger than that. When we beleive that personal "comfort and lifestyle" overrides moral principles and peoples moral principles are open for ridicule, then we have major problems

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • hugh jampton:

      02 Oct 2008 12:09:01pm

      So what if a woman visits a doctor who refuses the abortion, and also refuses the referral to someone who will do it? Because of her circumstances (lets assume it's rape) the woman is so depressed and unable to find a doctor who will perform the abortion. In desperation she seeks a backyard job and both her and the foetus die. To what extent is the doctor responsible for her loss of life?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Heb:

  02 Oct 2008 9:50:14am

  Whatever your personal view is the point here is that health professionals, whether they are doctors or nurses, SHOULD have the right to decline to participate in a procedure that is contrary to their religious, cultural or moral beliefs.
  
  Obviously termination/abortion is a very sensitive issue and it is very reasonable that some people may object to directly participating in this procedure.
  
  If your GP or OB/GYN declines, you can always get a second opinion!

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Patch:

    02 Oct 2008 10:06:22am

    And the doctor has to refer you to someone for that second opinion. Thats not really that bad is it?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • steven:

      02 Oct 2008 11:28:33am

      Why should your doctor find you someone else. That is your decison and responsibility. You dont expect your car mechanic or plumber to refer you to someone else for a second quote. This is really about bullying and trying to foce someone to be complicit in something they find reprehensible

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        02 Oct 2008 11:57:39am

        The doctor should because it should be their duty to their patient.
        
        A plumber or mechanic would refer you on to someone else if they cant do the work required for whatever reason, although I think perhaps your moral high ground is getting a little shaky if you are comparing abortion to getting you car fixed.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• psquared:

  02 Oct 2008 9:54:40am

  Women have been choosing how to, and indeed whether to, carry off spring since time immemorial. There are always consequences to our actions. I fail to see the importance or validity of emotionally charged, religiously motivated incursions into the affairs of others. The sooner we get this one tucked up the better.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• J Dee:

  02 Oct 2008 9:56:06am

  Hospitals that receive Government funding should be required to provide approved public services, irrespective of whether the services are morally repugnant to the owners, operators & medical staff. I'm wondering whether a doctor who is a practicing Jehovah's Witness would be able to avoid treating patients who require blood transfusions simply because many Witnesses refuse to have blood transfusions on religious grounds.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • PaulB:

    02 Oct 2008 10:32:27am

    
    J Dee,
    
    You make a good point.
    
    Earlier this year we had Australian Mercy Ministries, providing homes and care for young women suffering the effects of eating disorders, self harm, abuse, depression & unplanned pregnancies.
    
    The treatments prescribed by these charletons included, exorcisms, to rid patients of demon possesion. "But hey, they were just doing thier best for the girls, in keeping with the Ministries own whack-a-loonery."
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • WAKEUP:

    02 Oct 2008 10:35:41am

    
    And a government that is re-aligning its budget to shorten the waiting list for premature babies requiring cardiac surgery & is also prepared to legislate the killing of babies only weeks earlier in their development is profoundly confused!!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Heb:

    02 Oct 2008 12:20:55pm

    I understand what you are saying but the comparison to a blood transfusion is a little simplistic. There is a big difference between a termination procedure and a blood transfusion, which is why the debate is alway so sensitive and emotive.
    
    Public hospitals or specialist clinics do provide these services, we are talking about the individual doctor's right to decline to perform this procedure within the system.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Lynne:

  02 Oct 2008 10:01:30am

  I'm over fifty and I've never had an abortion. I had a teenage pregnancy and a child taken for adoption. I had a traumatic time with contraception including the notorious copper 7 IUD.
  I had five more children; four of them home birth. I always thought there is just too much interference from doctors and governments in women's affairs. It is really up to women if they give birth and how and when. There are too many people in the world so it is far better for every child to be valued and wanted. Women can be trapped in impossible relationships as I was and be caught in psychological obligations to give birth.
  Always being interested in the anthroplogical knowledge of how indigenous and older cultures pre-Catholic managed their birth rates I found that herbal formulas from nature were widely used. Once in command of one of these magic herbal formulas I managed to dispose of every pregnancy in its early days without recource to doctors or even my husband's knowledge.
  All this argument about abortions; women should never have to stoop so low. The Inquisition scoured Europe killing women with knowledge of contraceptive herbs and filling the rest wth the idea of breeding for the Lord. Most Indigenous Women from around the world had knowledge of contraceptive herbs until various chuches got hold of them.
  It's no co-incidence that all fundamentalist religions have large families. It's a plot common to all to expand their followers and women are typically roped in as slave breeding factories.
  By giving an unborn child more rights than a woman you are continuing to instill more patriarchal values in a world terminally sick and possibly dying from an overdose of breeding for God and country.
  How about releasing the hidden knowledge of herbs instead of banning them which will release many doctors from the burden of having to do abortions and release women from the trauma and loss of dignity of abortion.
  Herbal contraception is trauma free. Like homebirth it is how nature intended.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Heb:

    02 Oct 2008 12:01:46pm

    Why is religion being brought up (and beaten up) here again?... it has nothing to do with the topic. We aren't debating on the right to terminate pregnancy but if health prefessionals have a right to decline to be part of a medical procedure or to refer them.
    
    By the by, in this day and age surely there are better options for contraception than using 'herbal contraception' to 'dispose of every pregnancy in its early days without recourse to doctors or even my husband's knowledge'! Much better to use reliable contraception in the first place!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Kocsonya:

      02 Oct 2008 12:27:02pm

      Why has religion been brought up?
      
      - Because the author of the article is member of a religious organisation
      
      - Because there is a positive correlation between anti-abortion views and religious belief
      
      - Because religion is accepted as a reason to refuse to perform some act while the "I just don't really like it" is not (e.g. you can refuse military service if it's against your religion but can't if you just don't feel like clowning around in uniform)
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Jack M:

  02 Oct 2008 10:14:29am

  The proposed bill is an overkill. The current legislation works well. Doctors should not be forced to act against their clinical judgement or conscience. After all their philosophy is driven by respect for and preservation of human life. The Bill in fact proposes to change the compliance with the Human Rights Charter that the rights of conscience of medical professionals should be respected. It demands rejection.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

• Kocsonya:

  02 Oct 2008 10:14:46am

  "Dr Eamonn Mathieson is an obstetric anaesthetist and a member of the Doctors in Conscience Against Abortion Bill group."
  
  and also a member of the Catholic Doctors' Association of Victoria.
  
  "We are an association of Catholic medical doctors who are interested in promoting a Catholic healthcare vision and in assisting Catholic doctors and other healthcare workers in the integration of their faith and work practice."
  
  The article is a nice propaganda piece, with clever twists:
  
  "If the word 'abortion' was substituted with 'euthanasia' or 'female circumcision' it is perhaps easier to see the issue. If these practices were legal [...] the issue of participation is perhaps more evident."
  
  Come again? Refusing referral to a *legal* procedure versus referring referral to an illegal one are very different. Of course, comparing non-Catholic doctors to "genital mutilators" has a certain vibe...
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• waryofitall:

  02 Oct 2008 10:16:12am

  What surprises me is that the ABC would allow such rampant emotional drivel to be proposed as news. Having said that - Maybe there should be some clearer process for referal. In the UK there are specific centres where a woman will self-refer too, she has an appointment with a Dr for a proper gyno check-up, a mandatory session with a counsellor who is there to listen and discuss the decision the woman is making - this takes an hour, and then an appointment with a second Dr (you have to have 2 referrals in the UK). After this - given all of the emotional and physical stuff is approved by the staff there - they will book the date of surgery for the patient, and a nurse will give all of the information required at that stage. Its a very humane and thorough process.
  This keeps it away from the GP arena, where delays and personal views can get in the way of womens rights to a safe abortion, and means that Drs who do oppose for whatever (I'm pro-choice, so I understand and accept that some people absolutely oppose the idea) reason do not have to be involved at all. Its seems like a reasonable way to go. Of course the UK have a very strong movement to maintain safe and legal abortions for women, so they have better infrastructure in place.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• wooller:

  02 Oct 2008 10:24:14am

  "If you're so pro-life, then lock arms and block cemeteries."
  - Bill Hicks.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• WAKEUP:

  02 Oct 2008 10:24:39am

  It beggars belief that the best care we can manage as a community to support and protect women faced with an unexpected pregnancy is to legalise the killing of her own children?!
  
  That seems a pretty heinous concession to our inadequacy as a modern, progressive and well resourced society.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Kocsonya:

    02 Oct 2008 10:39:40am

    In the first third of the pregnancy, if the woman falls seriously ill, the pregnancy usually terminates spontaneously. (In later stages it's more likely to result in a damaged foetus).
    
    Shall we prosecute women who catch the flu in early pregnancy and terminate with the hienous sin of criminally negligent manslaghter?
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    02 Oct 2008 10:41:25am

    There are valid medical reasons to terminate a pregnancy. However some out of touch religious types believe that it should never be allowed under any circumstances, even if the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. This should be a MEDICAL decision, not a religious one.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • WAKEUP:

      02 Oct 2008 10:54:57am

      
      Brad, What exactly are the 'valid reasons to terminate a pregnancy', and 'pregnancies that are life threatening for the mother'?
      
      If you are not a doctor, what is your authority on these? Thanks.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Kocsonya:

        02 Oct 2008 11:41:23am

        I'm not a doctor and have no authority whatsoever.
        
        However, a pregnancy resulting from a gang rape of a 12-yo girl sounds a valid reason to me.
        
        Furthermore, the condition called "hyperemesis gravidarum", that sometimes occur with diabetic women is a medical case where you can chose to "murder the innocent baby" or "let God invite the innocent baby and its mother to bathe in His glory in Heaven". There are others but that one is one of the better known ones.