Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

keane2097

jank wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that? Well in fact people in this very thread did.

Your reading comprehension seems to have let you down.

UDP

jank wrote: »

What if the patient was a Jehovah witness themselves?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

But the patient should always get to decide the treatment as long as they are mentally fit and deemed to be capable of making the decision.

If treatment is going to be offered it is better to do it based on science. In this case science is suggesting that maybe we don't need as many blood transfusions during surgery but I don't think one study of this size is enough to determine this for sure plus the difference of risk was about 10%.

Either way religion has nothing to do with this since religious instruction is not based on empirical evidence that is adjusted as new information is discovered.

Morag

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/05/01/toxic-culture/

Well there is a list of who not to have as a consultant so.

magicbastarder

Bobby42 wrote: »

He thinks life literally begins at conception.

So a fertilized egg should have the same rights as you or I apparently.

Should a woman be charged with murder for throwing out a sanitary towel?

how does that logic follow? since a sanitary towel would potentially contain an unfertilised egg.

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No problem at all if that is what has to be done to protect people from religious beliefs interfering in what treatments are prescribed or implemented. The only religious beliefs that should be allowed to have any influence in medical care are those of the patients. If people find they cannot separate their personal beliefs from their professional practice, to the point their views are being forced on, and affecting the treatment of their clients, then they need to change their field of practice.

If a woman were to go to a GP and they refuse to prescribe contraception at her request because of their religious beliefs, so she has her medical records transferred to another practice, who is discriminating? The doctor or the patient? Should clients have a right to be made aware of this stance prior to making a decision about joining that practice? I think that if any legal medical treatment is going to be 'conscientiously objected' to by a health professional for whatever reason, patients have a right to know this prior to commencing treatment, and also have a right to refuse treatment from said professional on that basis.

Your last bit makes sense but we have to agree to disagree in the main. I have made my points and will leave it like that

UDP

jank wrote: »

Has it been proven without doubt that this is the case because its very easy to state that because one is pro life they must be religious. Aren't there pro life atheists? Isn't it quite possible for an atheist doctor to object to abortion?

Remember a secular state also offered the person the freedom of choice regrading their religion or non beliefs. We should not have the state dictate terms on what beliefs one must have to be a doctor.

I don't think religion should come into it either as long as the doctor operates in a secular manner. Plus many religious people are bad at their religion and don't really believe all the rules even if they say they identify with a religion e.g. A large chunk of "catholics" in Ireland.

I would be concerned visiting a doctor or hospital that was devout religious since how can a person believe so strongly in something but yet not let it guide their thought processes e.g. the mater hospital refusing to use a potential drug for cancer due to the requirement of birth control to be taken by the patient. There is no way to ban this so it would be up to people themselves to decide for themselves whether they think it might affect them. I honestly don't see how public institutions with a religious ethos are funded with public money but that is another story.

Pro-life can be separate from religion but I'm sure you would find a much higher probability that if an ethos or person is devout catholic, for example, they are more likely to be pro-life since that is the rules of Catholicism. They wouldn't be very good catholics if they willfully terminated a fetus so I would imagine there is a higher risk of hesitation when going down the route of termination of a pregnancy.

CerebralCortex

magicbastarder wrote: »

how does that logic follow? since a sanitary towel would potentially contain an unfertilised egg.

Well hasn't it been shown that miscarriages happen fairly frequently without the women knowing. There was an article on that recently. I can't find it. Here is some tenuous evidence that it happens.

"some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss."

Knasher

magicbastarder wrote: »

how does that logic follow? since a sanitary towel would potentially contain an unfertilised egg.

An egg can become fertilized but not implant in the uterus wall.

Kiwi in IE

jank wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that? Well in fact people in this very thread did.

I will assume you are referring to me. I did not at any stage suggest that anyone who is religious should be banned from becoming a doctor. What I have said is that if they have a 'conscientious objection' to any medical treatment, their clients have a right to be made aware of this and refuse their input in medical treatment accordingly if they wish.

In the case of a suicidal woman facing a panel of three consultants who must approve an abortion on the grounds of suicide, I believe she has every right to refuse the input of a consultant who for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, is anti abortion.

If it were my daughter in that position I would not be happy with practising Catholics on the panel, given the stance of the RCC on abortion. Nor any other person with other reasons, religious or otherwise, to be against abortion (if it were my daughter in that position she'd be gone to England), the fact is though in a country that is apparently '90%' Catholic you are statistically likely to get a whole panel full. This is why I initially referred only to Catholics. I would like to see something in place to protect women from religious bias influencing these panels.

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well hasn't it been shown that miscarriages happen fairly frequently without the women knowing. There was an article on that recently. I can't find it. Here is some tenuous evidence that it happens.

"some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss."

Indeed very relevant ethics paper for this debate. It poses the question if each embryo is a person then why aren't we doing anything to pervent such astonishing natural rates of loss of which there an estimated 200+ million per year. Cancer, in contrast, only kills less than 10 million.

magicbastarder

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well hasn't it been shown that miscarriages happen fairly frequently without the women knowing.

even allowing for that, the woman has had no conscious role in the failure to implant.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

So you would have no problem discriminating in regards a persons profession because of their religious views? Perhaps we should ban any religious person from practicing medicine?

We already allow most of the primary schools in this country to discriminate against teachers on religious grounds. I.e if you're not a Catholic we can legally refuse to hire you.

I don't know about hospitals, especially those with a religious ethos, but I suspect that institutionalised religious discrimination has been present since the founding of the state.

Catholics in Ireland are so used to getting it all their their own way in the spheres of education and medicine, they don't even realise just how blatant the discrimination against non-Catholics can be.

Penn

jank wrote: »

No, of course not. Where the hell did i say that!

A persons religious or atheist views should not be taken into account for their prospective ability to practice medicine. Tell me Penn, would you be OK if the government decreed that you were not allowed work in a certain sector or profession cause your an atheist? I highly doubt it.

I was simply highlighting the huge leap in your response to another poster. No one is saying people with religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine. What people are saying it that if a person puts their religious beliefs ahead of what's best for the patient who may not share the same beliefs or to the same extent, and which not in the best interests of the patient, then that person is unable to do the job they were hired to do.

If I was in a car crash and my doctor was a Jehovah's Witness, I wouldn't care. If I needed a blood transfusion and the doctor refused on account of their religious beliefs, then I'd care.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

UDP wrote: »

My problem with this is that their cognitive bias will get in the way no matter what - if they truly believe it in the anti-abortion way of thinking i.e. terminating the fetus will always be the last option whereby like in the case of Ms. Halappanavar where there was an over emphasis placed on the heartbeat of the fetus. Thus I would rather know a physician's true position so as to know where termination will lie as an option should things go wrong during a pregnancy. Contracts/Oaths don't mean a whole amount when decisions regarding care can be subjective and relying on one person's opinion.

I'd separate out two things. The first is just the individual circumstances of your wife, which is just something that ye need to discuss with medical practioners who can actually give meaningful advice. If ye don't know many folk who've had children in Ireland and who might be able to share experiences, even an initial discussion with a GP might be helpful, and might offer a way of identifying an Obstetrician that ye would develop confidence in. But, certainly, your wife should surface her concerns with a medical professional.

The second is the actual legal position. Whether before or after this legislation, the Constitution really only envisages terminations where (in that phrase that's becoming too familiar) there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the woman. While it is not necessary for doctors to be of the opinion that the risk to the woman's life is inevitable or immediate, they do have to be of the opinion that the risk exists. The Constitution does not envisage the situation of a woman seeking a termination on grounds of her own fears, where medical opinion is that a substantial risk does not exist. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, this law can't enable it.

In other words, no doctor in Ireland can offer a patient an assurance that they will perform a termination on request in the event of the patient (as distinct from the doctor) forming the opinion that this is necessary. Effectively, the law requires all doctors to act as if they were good Roman Catholics.

Knasher

jank wrote: »

What if the patient was a Jehovah witness themselves?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html

Bit of an aside, but that sounds like selection bias more than anything else to me. If JW patients need to take doses of EPO and iron prior to surgery as well as restricting the use of heart and lung machines, then you are limiting your comparative pool just to patients who are healthy enough to wait and whose operation doesn't necessitate the use of such machines. Unless the study limits the general pool of patients to those who would still undergo surgery under the stricter conditions that the JW's impose, then the data in no way supports that conclusion.

That being said this strikes me more of any example of shoddy science reporting rather than shoddy science. I had a quick look at the paper in question, and its conclusions don't seem quite so audacious as the article seems to indicate.

aloyisious

can we place bets on a re-visit to the 4 Courts?

Sarky

Given that it's clearly an attempt to maintain the status quo so as not to upset the raving basket-cases who opposed it, what are the odds of the ECHR saying "lol no, do it properly"?

Turtwig

What I don't get is that this situation would probably never have presented itself if the Pro-Lifers hadn't campaigned for a 'No' vote in the last referendum. Most of them voted no because it is was legalising abortion. Now they're opposing this bill on the grounds that it's allowing abortion in cases of suicide and we'll get abortion on demand, somehow, from that.
Had they voted 'yes' to the previous referendum the suicide issue might not be even on the table. And it'd probably have been significantly harder for Pro-Choice groups to gain any sort of terriroty or momentum. I know they want to blame the Pro-Choice lobby for this present bill but really they should take a good look at their own PR machine and planning.

Kiwi in IE

jank wrote: »

What if it was in a private capacity?

So cause religion in the past was forced onto people, it's now ok to force by law securlist discrimination regarding a persons profession and career. I thought we moved away from this eye for an eye stuff some years ago.

Religion was not only forced on people in the past Jank. It is forced on people NOW! Can you tell me in all seriousness that there has been no religious influence in the establishment of current laws that prevent a raped woman or a woman whose child will not survive after birth, from obtaining a safe, legal abortion at home?

Can you tell me honestly that 97% of state run, tax payer funded schools being religious is not 'forcing religion on people'?

The scariest thing is that many religious people see nothing wrong with this and fear secularism, which would not even slightly impinge on their rights. For example a teacher in a secular school should be reprimanded for telling their class "if you sin you will go to hell", likewise the same teacher should also be reprimanded for saying "Jesus was an ordinary man". The way it is here they are allowed to say one but not the other. They should be able to say neither. What they can say is "It is a Catholic belief that if a person sins they will go to hell".

I am an athiest and I don't agree at all that States should impose on citizens that religion is nonsense, even though that is what I believe with 100% certainty. Why do so many religious people therefore think that it is acceptable for their religion to be imposed on those of differents beliefs?

Doctor Strange

Sarky wrote: »

Given that it's clearly an attempt to maintain the status quo so as not to upset the raving basket-cases who opposed it, what are the odds of the ECHR saying "lol no, do it properly"?

I dunno. Depends how they view the panel of doctors business. I mean, I'd expect them to come down really hard on the fact the government wants a suicidal woman to present herself for an evaluation at a pretty tough time.

Kiwi in IE

If, when there is a conflict, a doctor places his/her own personal religious beliefs about a treatment above the health, safety and well being of their patient then no, they should not be a doctor.

If religious or any other personal beliefs cause problems in one particular area of medicine, then that area should be avoided. I see no rational reason why a staunch Catholic (for example) would want to work in the area of obstetrics and gynocology in a public hospital where they will be faced with contraception, the potential need for terminations and referrals to assisted fertility every day and then expect to conscientiously object to prescribing any of it.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

really they should take a good look at their own PR machine and planning.

I dunno, I'm kinda happy to let them blatantly point out how twisted and inhumane their majority ideals are time and again...

robindch

jank wrote: »

robindch wrote:

In a secular state, there is a basic assumption that people can use services without having to be concerned about religious interference. This thread is currently discussing whether that assumption is being ignored by the religious in the case of abortion.

Has it been proven without doubt that this is the case because its very easy to state that because one is pro life they must be religious. Aren't there pro life atheists? Isn't it quite possible for an atheist doctor to object to abortion?

Uh, yes, there are "pro-life" atheists, but I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote. Here, I'll try again:

This thread is currently discussing, where abortion is concerned, whether the secular assumption of no religious interference is being ignored by the religious.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Effectively, the law requires all doctors to act as if they were good Roman Catholics.

Indeed.

Article 40.3.3 is basically religious dogma inserted into the constitution, and any new law is by necessity limited by it. All the same, this new law (as proposed) is actually highlighting just how desperate many in government are to tighten things up even more, by making women and doctors jump through a ridiculous number of hoops for what should be a straightforward medical decision.

The proposed penalties are mind-boggling. They might as well scrawl "Abortion is murder!" in red paint across the walls of the Dáil. I sincerely hope these proposed penalties cause some disquiet in the general public, but I'm not holding my breath.

Also, the requirement for unanimous rather than majority voting by groups of doctors is farcical. What's that about? Why would a majority decision not always be the better option? It smacks of desperation - ensure as many doctors as possible have to be involved, and allow just one psycho anti-abortionist to have a veto and overrule all the others. It really is scandalous.

It's like a flashback to the eighties. I really had hoped for better.

Dreamertime

Flier wrote: »

If the foetus is at or past the stage of viability it would be delivered.

Via C section?

The Black Oil

http://www.thejournal.ie/pro-life-groups-proposals-go-too-far-pro-choice-bill-doesnt-go-far-enough-892142-May2013/

The Life Institute said Fine Gael had ‘caved in’ to Labour on abortion, with spokeswoman Niamh Uí Bhriain saying the absence of any provision on term limits would “horrify the Irish people”.

“We’ve seen the horrors of the Kermit Gosnell case in the US in recent weeks, and just how horrific late term abortions are,” she said.
“Fine Gael made a deal with Labour – ‘Support our austerity measure, and we’ll give you abortion’, but it is Fine Gael who will now become known as the abortion party,” she said.

“Labour represent less than 10% of the people now according to polls, yet they are deciding for the whole country on this issue of life and death.”

Youth Defence said Enda Kenny would be “forever known as the Abortion Taoiseach” while his Fine Gael party would be perceived as being whipped on the issue “by abortion extremists in the Labour Party”.

Ridiculous, but unsurprising hyperbole here.

The group said it was evident that Fine Gael’s legislation opened the door to abortion on demand, and that it would work to educate voters about this.

YD and education? Give me a break.

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

Tell me Penn, would you be OK if the government decreed that you were not allowed work in a certain sector or profession cause your an atheist? I highly doubt it.

To be appointed a judge, or President, one must take a religious oath.
As another poster already pointed out, plenty of state employees (teachers) are subject to a religious veto on holding their jobs.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

I sincerely hope these proposed penalties cause some disquiet in the general public, but I'm not holding my breath.

In which case, you'll be inspired by this

http://www.newstalk.ie/Today-is-a-good-day-for-Irish-women

Dr. Rhona Mahony, Master of the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin has said that it’s a good day for Irish women. She welcomes the legislation and would commend the Government to draft this Bill. “In think that its progress, it’s a step forward both for woman and doctors caring from them”.

In January she asked the Oireachtas Health Committee hearing on the aborition legislation if she or a mother of an unborn baby could go to jail for misinterpretation of the current legislation.

Today she told Shane that prior to this legislation doctors had interpret the Constitution to some extent for themselves but now this will no longer be necessary. She said there was a now a process in place that ‘doctors can act within the law and it does give us enhanced protection. More importantly I think the effect of this is to enhance the protection of women seeking treatment within our hospitals’.

I'd like to think she's right. I just don't see it.

Cork Boy

Great article written here by Victoria White in d'Examiner about the hypocrisy of the legislation.

Few choice excerpts:

"It is legislation which criminalises a woman who ends her pregnancy because she wants to and threatens her with up to 14 years in prison or an unlimited fine — except when she ends her pregnancy up the road in Newry or across the pond in Aberystwyth. In which case, the loss of a human life is of no interest."

"It is a law which spells out that the pregnant woman herself must have no say in whether her pregnancy ends with a baby or not. A law designed, in that disgusting phrase, “not to open the floodgates” to the torrents of hussies who’d ditch their pregnancies if they had half a chance.

Haven’t the legislators noticed that virtually every Irish mother they’ve ever known would gaily cut off her right hand to benefit her child, born or unborn? No they haven’t. "

aloyisious

There's a story in today's Irish Times about Dr Peter Boylan and how some of his fellow Dr's view his testimony at the Savita inquest. It seem's they wrote an open letter to the papers giving their views.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fletter-an-attack-on-my-professional-opinion-says-obstetrician-1.1379025&ei=EhmCUcuiI6XW7Qar1YAg&usg=AFQjCNFKDcGoFL-Q2WlxXdtF2mFYeiCc1A&bvm=bv.45921128,d.ZGU