Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Overheal

But you said abortion isn’t a right? If it’s a right in some cases that’s still a right. And who decides? You? The WHO declaration of reproductive rights sure doesn’t say “only in some cases”

aloyisious

I had a chat with two anti-abortion campaigners tomight by chance and the discussion turned to John McGuirk. Their opinion of his helpfullness to the Vote NO campaign was that he was completely the opposite, in that whenever he spoke he turned people against it by what they called his hard-line statements. I hadn't known they were campaigners on the NO side til then and the chat began when they mentioned going to a get-together for the NO campaigners over the weekend.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

John McGuirk. Their opinion of his helpfullness to the Vote NO campaign was that he was completely the opposite, in that whenever he spoke he turned people against it by what they called his hard-line statements.

McGuirk made a public bet with Keith Mills (also on the no side) that if Dublin Central went 3:1 Yes he would never take another political job.


But I am not sure anyone but Declan Ganley would ever have given him a political job like that in the first place, and I doubt he would again, so the bet may be easy to fulfil.

aloyisious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

McGuirk made a public bet with Keith Mills (also on the no side) that if Dublin Central went 3:1 Yes he would never take another political job.


But I am not sure anyone but Declan Ganley would ever have given him a political job like that in the first place, and I doubt he would again, so the bet may be easy to fulfil.

Only became aware in the last week of the campaign that Declan Ganley was involved, bit surprised at that. During the other referendum I got to see Keith Mills as a dyed-in-the-wool person where religious V civil belief is concerned, bit surprised to read he had reckoned a winnable bet toward the yes side this time was a sure thing. Maybe antennae tuned in better this time.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Nice colourful diagram, but it falls at the first hurdle; No.1 "Proposal from Commission". Where do these guys get their proposals from? From the lobbyists that grease their palms.

The EU commissioners originate proposals from a) themselves; b) other people including the EU parliament, petitioners, national governments, lobbyists and so on. Lobbyists usually represent industries and as such they have every right to be represented and, occasionally, they may indeed have useful things to add about how their industry works and how it can be helped by law.

In any case, so long as these proposals presented by the EU Commission are in line with the Commission's published priorities, your problem with proposals being received from industry (on the grounds that they are presumably corrupt - your last post on this topic) is no more relevant than your problem with proposals received from politicians (on the grounds that they are corrupt - your second-last post on this topic).

recedite wrote: »

Also your entire diagram refers to the E Parliament, which is not where all the power lies. More power lies with the Council of Ministers.

Since there are multiple powers of veto built into the system - as outlined in my "nice colourful diagram" - your claim that more power lies somewhere other than the veto suggests that you're unfamiliar with the power of a veto.

recedite wrote: »

It works like this... Merkel gets an idea and discusses it with Macron. If both are happy they individually make trips to the second tier (UK and Italy) [...] Varadkar is one of those Tier 3 ministers [...]

No, that is not how it works. Though I will certainly concede that people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Pharage certainly make much hay pretending that this is how it works.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Nigel Pharage

Farage.
I won't go further off topic, but keep an eye out in future and you'll observe that the outcome of any significant CoM meeting has already been decided many weeks or months earlier at the initial bilateral between France and Germany.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Farage.

Nigel's name is more familiar, by far, than it should be in any society which values honor or honesty.

Since Mr Pharage chooses to do little beyond deceiving his low-rent, neofascist fanbase, the least I can do - and the very most he can expect - is to treat him as he is, namely, the UK's very own, wheedling, Herostratus.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Nigel's name is more familiar, by far, than it should be in any society which values honor or honesty.

Had to look it up, ignoramus that I am, seems apt

antiskeptic

As an aside, how do others pronounce others gamer tags?

smacl = smackle

robindch = Robin Ditch

recedite

Well, with me being an omniscient pedant, I always recite their full titles in my head.
So for me its Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri Lover, and Robin followed by his actual name.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

As an aside, how do others pronounce others gamer tags?

smacl = smackle

robindch = Robin Ditch

You want to dodge the discussion that much that this is now what you are resorting to?

:rolleyes:

robindch

smacl wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Since Mr Pharage chooses to do little beyond deceiving his low-rent, neofascist fanbase, the least I can do - and the very most he can expect - is to treat him as he is, namely, the UK's very own, wheedling, Herostratus.

Had to look it up, ignoramus that I am, seems apt

Hey, the Pharage connection is good (if mildly gross), but the Herostratus notion is classical - proving once again that there's little that we're doing now that the Ancient Greeks or Romans didn't do first, or name better

robindch

recedite wrote: »

[...] Robin followed by his actual name.

The "dch" bit is a permanent, and mildly uncomfortable, memorial to the fact that it's not my actual name.

- robin

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Had to look it up, ignoramus that I am, seems apt

I also looked it up, and now I really wish I hadn't.

PopePalpatine

Why am I thinking of Rick Santorum right now?

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why am I thinking of Rick Santorum right now?

Ewww...!

Overheal

Abortions, though:

Overheal

So the opposition has thus far not come up with any bright ideas that make any more sense to implement than the 12 weeks proposed; instead the issue is being raised about doctors and their abilities to opt-in to provision of abortions and abortifaceants and of their right to conscientiously object not only to performing such services but even to referring a patient on to someone who will.

It seems the opt-in scheme will work as will a list of doctors which will provide such services (protest and anarchist groups alike will compile such lists over the course of due time anyway - as will I expect pro choice groups compile a list of doctors who object to providing crisis pregnancy care).

But what doesn’t make sense to me and hopefully not to your Oireachtas is the right to object to refer a patient to a provider. This would create a discontinuity in patient care where the patient then has to use their own resources to find such services (unless it is made stupendously fluid by the govt to head to such providers directly). Doctors and their offices should not for example be able to extend any objection to transferring patient records on, that is just dangerous for the patient, and time consuming if a care provider isn’t given established patient history to work with. I’m genuinely concerned activist doctors will refuse to or needlessly delay transmitting records on, if there is not oversight in that regard.

But what’s more, the objection doesn’t make sense on its face: it’s under the guise of doing no harm, not killing, etc etc. but the longer a woman or girl is in crisis, the longer an embryo/fetus is in development, and the more likely it will be that said fetus would incur suffering under the same beliefs that abortion harms that unborn. The earlier the pregnancy is terminated, the less suffering that is incurred. The woman or girl in question has already established that she will not carry the unborn to term, so why delay the inevitable and increase the likelihood that both the pregnant woman/girl or the unborn will experience suffering or further complication? If the objective is to be an obstacle to a woman’s right to choose, by delaying how quickly they can find a provider, where is the ethical or moral or legal high ground in doing that?

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

Doctors and their offices should not for example be able to extend any objection to transferring patient records on, that is just dangerous for the patient..

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.
Compare to say, if you fell out with your doctor over some treatment you were getting, and decided to switch to a different GP. Previous GP is not obliged to recommend a competitor; but you can look that up yourself.
Once you register with the new GP, the former one is obliged to send your records over to the new one ASAP.

aloyisious

Any feedback from the Courts Service on what Judge Kelly is doing with the 3 petition-case he's hearing? Has he deferred judgement til a later date while he considers what the applicants said yesterday or has he passed the matter on to the High Court?

Overheal

aloyisious wrote: »

Any feedback from the Courts Service on what Judge Kelly is doing with the 3 petition-case he's hearing? Has he deferred judgement til a later date while he considers what the applicants said yesterday or has he passed the matter on to the High Court?

Heard they got a court date I think sometime next week. AFAIK the Dail still plans to introduce registration by July 10.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

no exercising of reproductive rights was criminalised in ireland within the last couple of decades. abortion is not a reproductive right.

Very kind of you to clear that up. Sorry, meant to say, to restate your own personal view, in defiance of not just democracy, but of generally accepted use of language.

as for politicians changing their view, i don't believe for one second varadkar and simon harris changed their minds. i think they chopped and changed to the view they think will get them re-elected but i'm not sure it will work as people are getting board of fg and want change

<elevator music plays during tangential 'pivot to talking about FG, bash the Blueshirts' interlude>

The examples I actually cited were the pols on the committee that claimed to change their view during the hearings. They all liars, too?

If literally no-one has change their mind in the last 35 years, then we can only be thankful for what we'll euphemistically refer to as "the cohort effect".

alaimacerc

Overheal wrote: »

Heard they got a court date I think sometime next week. AFAIK the Dail still plans to introduce registration by July 10.

When do we get the followup hearing on what to do with serial self-confessedly vexatious, filibustering litigants?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.

Did you watch the TV debates, as at least one GP said on live TV they would refuse to refer. Referral means access to information and records between the doctors/medical teams concerned, it's not passing on a phone number.


Meanwhile

Government expects to design ‘opt-in’ GP system for abortion

It will allow doctors refuse to provide or to take part in the provision of the lawful treatment, if it conflicts with sincerely held ethical or moral values.

However, it will legally oblige medical professionals in such a situation to enable their patients to transfer to another doctor to get the treatment they want.

...

However, Mr Varadkar added: “What we can’t allow is this suggestion that a GP, if he doesn’t provide the service, would then refuse to refer their patient on to someone who would because essentially that is the equivalent of, ‘you’re on your own, love’ and we’re not going to have that in Ireland any more.”

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Did you watch the TV debates, as at least one GP said on live TV they would refuse to refer. Referral means access to information and records between the doctors/medical teams concerned, it's not passing on a phone number.


Meanwhile

Government expects to design ‘opt-in’ GP system for abortion

well we never had it in the first place so it would be impossible for us not to have it anymore.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Did you watch the TV debates, as at least one GP said on live TV they would refuse to refer. Referral means access to information and records between the doctors/medical teams concerned, it's not passing on a phone number.
Government expects to design ‘opt-in’ GP system for abortion

That's not my understanding of the word "referral". What you are describing is the "transfer of patient records".From your link....

The association estimates that as many as eight in 10 GPs would choose not to opt-in under such a system.
Dr Andrew Jordan, chairman of the association, urged the Government to examine means to ensure doctors would not have an obligation to refer women seeking an abortion to a colleague.

It sounds like Varadkar wants to force these 80% of doctors to provide their patients with an abortion-friendly GP, at least for those who want one. It would save the patient having to look up the list themselves.
We'll have to wait and see what legislation gets passed. It won't make a huge difference either way. Its just an extra little bit of triumphalism.

One problem I can foresee here is that in many parts of the country the GPs client lists are already full. And a lot of GP's won't take on medical card patients anyway. What happens if the conscientious GP can't find a suitable abortion-friendly GP in the area? Whose problem is it then? This is exactly the kind of responsibility that Varadkar and Harris want to shirk.

Calling for a "GP led service" is basically shifting responsibility onto GPs, and away from the deficiencies of politicians and the HSE.

I envisage private "for profit" abortion clinics being set up, and the state funding public patients to attend them. In the short term, public funding for people on medical cards to travel to England.

Peregrinus

There's a wider issue here about the custody and transfer of medical data. Such data belongs, or should belong, to the patient, not the doctor/hospital, and the patient should have a right to have it shared with any other doctor/hospital who is assessing or treating or advising the patient. If we find we need a special rule giving patients this right in cases where they are seeking an abortion, that means we lack a general rule giving patients this right in all circumstances. The correct solution then is not to create a special rule given patients this right when they are seeking an abortion, but a general rule giving patients this right, full stop.

I agree with Rec that most people understand "referral" in the medical context to mean "putting someone in touch with a practitioner who can provide the treatment that they seek", and the issue is whether GPs are to be obliged to provide referrals, even if they have a conscientious objection to doing so.

I think we need to distinguish two cases:

- where the abortion is sought, or contemplated, as treatment for a medical problem.

- where there is no medical issue.

Pregnancy isn't a disease, and a pregnant woman is not ill or injured. Thus there's no professional ethical obligation on any doctor to provide an abortion simply because a woman wants one, or to refer her for one. This is, I think, generally true in countries where abortion is legal.

There's a minority of cases in which abortion is contemplated as a response to a medical issue, and in those cases I think doctors are professionally obliged, if not to offer abortions, then to refer patients to practitioners who will do so.

I think to go beyond this is an unwarranted imposition of doctors. If the abortion is sought not in response to any medical issue, why is it the responsibility of doctors, in particular, to help obtain the abortion?

I think Rec is right to suggest that specialist services will arise to meet the need, and they will make their presence known. (My only quibble is that there is no reason to suppose that they will be for-profit services; in other countries these services are routinely provided by not-for-profits as well as by for-profits, and why would we expect it to be any different here?) There are already specialist family planning clinics, womens' health clinics, etc; I expect they will move into the provision of this service also, and they have an incentive to make their presence known and their services accessible.

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pregnancy isn't a disease, and a pregnant woman is not ill or injured. Thus there's no professional ethical obligation on any doctor to provide an abortion simply because a woman wants one, or to refer her for one. This is, I think, generally true in countries where abortion is legal.

There's a minority of cases in which abortion is contemplated as a response to a medical issue, and in those cases I think doctors are professionally obliged, if not to offer abortions, then to refer patients to practitioners who will do so.

I think to go beyond this is an unwarranted imposition of doctors. If the abortion is sought not in response to any medical issue, why is it the responsibility of doctors, in particular, to help obtain the abortion?

Because this is how it works with other 'reproductive services' like contraception, MAP, sterilisation. I'd imagine that sterilisations are not sought for specifically medical reasons in the majority of cases either. AFAIK, doctors in Ireland are entitled to opt out of providing those services themselves but are legally obliged to refer.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the abortion is sought not in response to any medical issue, why is it the responsibility of doctors, in particular, to help obtain the abortion?

Who else is going to supply this service, train drivers?

Of course it must be doctors.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a minority of cases in which abortion is contemplated as a response to a medical issue, and in those cases I think doctors are professionally obliged, if not to offer abortions, then to refer patients to practitioners who will do so.

In the cases where it is not being sought due to a medical issue linked to pregancy there may well still be other medical issues which are relevant, so the GP has a duty of care to cooperate with the doctor providing the abortion.

Let's say you want a boob job* and you go to your GP for advice/referral, who is aghast at the very idea. So you research it yourself and find a surgeon willing to operate on you but they want to see your GP records. Your GP refuses because of their moral objection to cosmetic surgery. The anaesthetic interacts with another drug you're taking, and you almost die. How is this ethical?




* NB I didn't say an enhancement or a reduction


As for clinics, yes we already have IFPA / WellWoman etc. clinics and they will certainly become involved in offering medical abortion. I do not expect any surgical abortions to be taking place in Ireland outside of maternity hospitals. As for the resource implications of the latter, how can the resource implications be any lesser if the women concerned choose to go to term?