Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

Of course it must be doctors.

Why must it be doctors? Anyone who knows where you can obtain an abortion can tell you where you can obtain an abortion. Why should doctors, and only doctors, be obliged to tell you where you can obtain an abortion? Telling you about abortion providers is not a medical skill that only a doctor can provide.

Peregrinus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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.

SFAIK doctors are not obliged to refer for sterilisations which are not medically indicated.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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.

Yes. I thought I made my view here clear. The GP is obliged to share your medical data with any other medic you consult, and if he isn't he should be. This shouldn't be a special rule for abortions; it should be generally true, regardless of what advice or treatment you are seeking from the other medic.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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?

It's not.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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?

This isn't for me, I think. I made no point about resource implications.

But, FWIW, I agree with you. The resource implications of carrying a pregnancy to term are much greater than the resource implications of any abortion.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, FWIW, I agree with you. The resource implications of carrying a pregnancy to term are much greater than the resource implications of any abortion.

Certainly in the short term, and for that particular hospital.
In terms of society in general, not so much. There are some countries in the world in which the wealth is generated from oil or other natural resources, and extra citizens are just an extra drain on that. But Ireland is not one of those countries. We are a country that relies primarily on its citizens to generate the national wealth, and to pay the pensions.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Certainly in the short term, and for that particular hospital.
In terms of society in general, not so much. There are some countries in the world in which the wealth is generated from oil or other natural resources, and extra citizens are just an extra drain on that. But Ireland is not one of those countries. We are a country that relies primarily on its citizens to generate the national wealth, and to pay the pensions.

In every country that's not overpopulated, one additional person increases national wealth - i.e. they produce more than they consume. This is true even for resource-rich countries.

But if we're just looking at consumption of medical resources, carrying a pregnancy to term costs more than terminating it (which is why health insurers cover terminations for no extra premium) and of course providing lifetime medical care for a child born alive costs more again.

end of the road

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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.

abortion is very different though given what it does. so different rules should apply in relation to doctors and their wish or not to provide that service or have any part in it. forget about transferring of records as that's rather different and i'd imagine all doctors will do it regardless of their view. transferring records won't be having a hand in the abortion IMO.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is very different though given what it does.

In your opinion. Some hardline pro-lifers see the MAP as just as bad as abortion

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In every country that's not overpopulated, one additional person increases national wealth - i.e. they produce more than they consume. This is true even for resource-rich countries.

What's your logic for this P. as it seems counter intuitive, e.g. someone born but not wanted by the mother enters in state child care and consumes resources provided by society at large. Say they don't achieve well academically and spend their entire life on welfare, how have they produced more than they consume? How have they increased the national wealth?

If you believe some sources, global human population is already spiraling out of control. According to this dandy little site there are 200,000 people more on the planet today than yesterday. The notion that the world needs more people seems entirely specious, the old 'Go forth and multiply' being long past its sell by date.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In your opinion. Some hardline pro-lifers see the MAP as just as bad as abortion

I dunno about "just as bad". If you're by-the-book Catholic, and see it as contraception, then that's clearly "bad", but explicitly "not as bad as abortion". If you're a fundie-evie type, then it's only really bad if you think it's potentially an abortifacient -- and there's apparently no real medical evidence that it is.

That there are people out there whose agenda is essentially, I want to control and judge women's sexuality, and I'll think of reasons and modalities later. But oddly enough, they tend not to express it in exactly such terms.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

What's your logic for this P. as it seems counter intuitive, e.g. someone born but not wanted by the mother enters in state child care and consumes resources provided by society at large. Say they don't achieve well academically and spend their entire life on welfare, how have they produced more than they consume? How have they increased the national wealth?

If you believe some sources, global human population is already spiraling out of control. According to this dandy little site there are 200,000 people more on the planet today than yesterday. The notion that the world needs more people seems entirely specious, the old 'Go forth and multiply' being long past its sell by date.

Obviously you can always find individual examples of people who, over a lifetime, consume more than the produce - e.g. the severely disabled, members of the royal family. But, in a country which is not overpopulated, on average each extra person produces more than they consume. That is in fact the definition of "overpopulation", as far as economists are concerned.

You make a good point about resource consumption. Our problem here is that the ways we measure production and consumption fail to take proper account of environmental impact, so if you develop better methods and redo the calculations you might come up with a different (and larger) list of overpopulated countries.

I don't think this has a huge amount to do with the ethics of abortion or facilitating abortion, however. On the individual level, few women choose abortion because of concern for the environmental impact their child would have, if born. On the collective level, the countries which have the highest abortion rates also tend to have populations who live the most environmentally wasteful lifestyles, so the thesis that encouraging or facilitating recourse abortion tends to relieve pressure on the environment is not a compelling one.

But I think we're straying from the point, which if I recall was that, as far as medical expenses borne by the community are concerned, the burden of providing an abortion is always going to be less that the burden resulting from denying an abortion. I don't think there can be any real argument about that.

But I also don't think it's a terribly weighty consideration in framing public policy around abortion. It's true that many women have abortions for economic reasons - they cannot fact the actual costs, and opportunity costs, of parenthood - but I doubt that any of us consider that a good thing. It wouild plainly be better if their economic situation were such that they could make an unconstrained choice. But the notion that we as a community should prefer women to have abortions because it costs us less money is even more alarming, and not one I think that would be endorsed by anyone who really values freedom of choice for women. Your freedom to choose the option that will cost me the least money is a watery kind of freedom.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why should doctors, and only doctors, be obliged to tell you where you can obtain an abortion?

In theory you could extend it somewhat beyond doctors per se. Social workers, say. Extending it to everyone might be impractical, given common law's supposed incompatibility with "good Samaritan" provisions.

That it should at least cover all GPs seems a fairly obvious step, especially given the proposed mode of service delivery.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

the conscientious GP

a suitable abortion-friendly GP

I'm loving this new front you're trial-ballooning on the "ludicrously loaded language" front.

I envisage private "for profit" abortion clinics being set up

Aaaaaand an old favourite.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

In theory you could extend it somewhat beyond doctors per se. Social workers, say. Extending it to everyone might be impractical, given common law's supposed incompatibility with "good Samaritan" provisions.

That it should at least cover all GPs seems a fairly obvious step, especially given the proposed mode of service delivery.

I don't think you need to extend it to social workers, or to identify any particular class of citizen who is obliged to provide this service. If the HSE thinks this service should be provided, the HSE can provide it directly, by keeping a publicly-available list of service providers. Is that not the simplest and most efficient way of doing things? They already maintain a website in which people can find hospitals, health centres, GP practices, pharmacies, dental practices and nursing homes. Is it beyond our wit to see how this might be extended in this context?

Seriously, people, I'm not seeing a problem here that needs to be fixed by imposing on the consciences of either GPs or social workers.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the HSE thinks this service should be provided, the HSE can provide it directly, by keeping a publicly-available list of service providers.

Sounds like a case of, "let's not have the GP-led service we just had a long and tedious referendum campaign about, let's 'contain' it as much as possible, the better to then be able to say 'OMG, abortion industry!' as and when one achieves that.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Sounds like a case of, "let's not have the GP-led service we just had a long and tedious referendum campaign about, let's 'contain' it as much as possible, the better to then be able to say 'OMG, abortion industry!' as and when one achieves that.

Not at all.

I think everyone accepts that GPs can't be compelled to provide abortions if they have a conscientious objection to doing so, and the design of a GP-led service is going to have to deal with this. There will be GPs who don't provide abortions. The system is going to have to deal with this, and everybody who talked about, or voted for, a GD-led service understands this.

Given that, why turn the issue of referrals into the Battle of Borodino? It seems to be that the referrals issue is relatively easily handled in a way that doesn't trample on anyone's conscience. So why go out of the way to trample on people's consciences? What problem is solved by doing that? What need is
met? Is this confrontation for its own sake?

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why must it be doctors? Anyone who knows where you can obtain an abortion can tell you where you can obtain an abortion. Why should doctors, and only doctors, be obliged to tell you where you can obtain an abortion? Telling you about abortion providers is not a medical skill that only a doctor can provide.

Your right, we'll go back to the time where the local postman provided abortions. The no side was fine with that and never sought one prosecution for illegal importation and use.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

What's your logic for this P. as it seems counter intuitive, e.g. someone born but not wanted by the mother enters in state child care and consumes resources provided by society at large. Say they don't achieve well academically and spend their entire life on welfare..

That's a very pessimistic view, especially given the situation in Ireland, ie the number of babies available for adoption being far below the number of childless (prospective) parents wanting to adopt. The notion of starving orphans wandering the streets, living a life of crime, seems a somewhat outdated. Its far more likely any adopted child would grow up in a stable home and ultimately become a productive member of society.

smacl wrote: »

If you believe some sources, global human population is already spiraling out of control. According to this dandy little site there are 200,000 people more on the planet today than yesterday. The notion that the world needs more people seems entirely specious, the old 'Go forth and multiply' being long past its sell by date.

P. did say "In every country that's not overpopulated, one additional person increases national wealth". In the world today, its the overpopulated countries that have a population spiralling out of control.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Your right, we'll go back to the time where the local postman provided abortions. The no side was fine with that and never sought one prosecution for illegal importation and use.

We're not talking about who provides abortions. We're talking about who tells people where they can obtain abortions. That seems to me to be a core function of the HSE, and something they already do in relation to a wide range of services and facilities.

So, my question is, why is that not the right way to let people know where they can obtain abortions? Why must we devise an entirely different system for disseminating this particular information? There is rarely a good reason for reinventing the wheel; is there a good reason in this instance? And, if we must devise another system, why must it be one which depends on on compelling people who have a conscientious objection? Be honest; does that look like a well-designed, well-thought-out system? Is such a system likely to work well, or smoothly, or reliably?

Everyone else who wants a medical service can find details on the HSE website. But it's proposed that women who want abortions should approach their GPs, who may object in principle to abortions, and obtain the information they need, face-to-face, from people who would rather not give it, and who disapprove of the choice they are making. Why would we single out women in need of abortions for this obviously sub-standard information service, which can only involve embarrassment or worse? "Yes, women have the right to choose, but here's a little hurdle some of them have to cross before they can exercise that right!"

antiskeptic

This is about pushing the wedge in as far as possible before it runs out of steam.

The nation isnt pro abortion but any reticence on their part is to be over ridden such as to render abortion a 'fully acceptable to society solution' to an individuals problem.

66% they will shout - as thats a carte blanche for anything that can be dreamt up relating to abortion.

A woman can look up a website for free. Or she (rather the liberals riding on her back) would prefer she pay 50 euro to make an appointment with a GP so that they can refer her on.

All to grind someones nose in it. Someone who might have no conscientious objection but who doesnt want their practice to have to take on something they don't see as a medical need.

Remember, a pregnant woman might not wanted to be treated by a doctor or lay on a gurney associated with the death of what she sees as a baby. I'd want to be treated by a doctor for whom life was sacrosanct - and I imagine many pro-choice women who are pregnant with a much wanted child would too. There is nothing guaranteed to over ride your compassion for others /trust women leanings, than a strong, protective, maternal instinct regarding the baby in own womb.



Are such women also to pay 50 euro for a referral. Or can they too, simply look up a website

nozzferrahhtoo

I have yet to meet anyone at all, even one person, let alone a nation, who is "pro abortion" though. This is a phrase or concept or narrative that appears to come solely from the people who are actually AGAINST abortion in nearly all it's forms.

Similarly I would not consider myself "Pro heart bypass surgery" either. I would much rather live in a society entirely devoid of anyone requiring, seeking, or having such a procedure.

Rather what people I have met actually appear to be is pro MANY solutions to the issue of unwanted or crisis pregnancies. Solutions that A) have the target or reducing how many of them even happen in the first place maximize the number of choices people have when they do happen and C) foster an environment where people can best feel they can actually MAKE those choices, rather than feeling some small sub set of them are the only ones actually viable.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this has a huge amount to do with the ethics of abortion or facilitating abortion

I think if you consider abortion as a small but occasionally necessary aspect to planned parenthood, it certainly plays a significant role in the health and wealth of society. You say that statistically those who are net consumers in our society which implies there are others who are net producers of wealth. If unwanted children are statistically more likely to be be net consumers, wanted children are thus more likely to be net producers and hence planned parenthood makes for a wealthier society.

On the individual level, few women choose abortion because of concern for the environmental impact their child would have, if born. On the collective level, the countries which have the highest abortion rates also tend to have populations who live the most environmentally wasteful lifestyles, so the thesis that encouraging or facilitating recourse abortion tends to relieve pressure on the environment is not a compelling one.

While wealthy countries that are environmentally wasteful may also allow abortion, it seems specious to jump from this very loose correlation to suggestive causation. The cause would seem more likely to be levels of disposable income, alongside rampant consumerism and lack of environmental awareness. So we see more environmentally aware countries in Northern Europe becoming less wasteful while still allowing abortion, and other wealthy nations that seek to restrict or do not allow abortion such as Saudi or parts of the states being big generators of waste. As we see increasing awareness of the necessity to reduce waste, such as banning single use plastic in Europe, it is hardly likely to affect abortion laws in any of the countries involved.

Regardless of any of the above, at a global level, as we desist from large scale conflict and reduce disease levels, we have to consider our preferred total population size. The worlds population cannot grow indefinitely, and for my money, planned parenthood beats a large scale cull of any description

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have yet to meet anyone at all, even one person, let alone a nation, who is "pro abortion" though. This is a phrase or concept or narrative that appears to come solely from the people who are actually AGAINST abortion in nearly all it's forms.
Similarly I would not consider myself "Pro heart bypass surgery" either. I would much rather live in a society entirely devoid of anyone requiring, seeking, or having such a procedure.

That doesn't quite fit with the strange spectacle of crowds of people gathering to sing and dance outside Dublin castle after the referendum result.
I mean, I'd vote for some sort of legalised assisted suicide provision for the terminally ill, but I'd consider it to be in very poor taste to celebrate a Yes result.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Rather what people I have met actually appear to be is pro MANY solutions to the issue of unwanted or crisis pregnancies...

Speaking of which, if you are handy with a machete, they may be looking for volunteers soon to help with the national vasectomy program :eek:

The funding to provide vasectomies has already been used up in some parts of the country, despite the Government's promise to extend measures to prevent crisis pregnancies.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/vasectomy-funds-for-year-spent-by-march-warns-gp-36996360.html

smacl

recedite wrote: »

That's a very pessimistic view, especially given the situation in Ireland, ie the number of babies available for adoption being far below the number of childless (prospective) parents wanting to adopt. The notion of starving orphans wandering the streets, living a life of crime, seems a somewhat outdated. Its far more likely any adopted child would grow up in a stable home and ultimately become a productive member of society.

P. did say "In every country that's not overpopulated, one additional person increases national wealth". In the world today, its the overpopulated countries that have a population spiralling out of control.

Ireland is part of Europe which is part of the world, though even then the local population is growing fast. We have a lot of immigrants and a lot of people emigrating so we really need to drop the NIMBYism and look at the bigger picture. Even at a personal and quite greedy local level, I enjoy living at the edge of the Dublin mountains with huge areas of national park land in walking distance. In Ireland, we have a housing crisis and the city is moving out in every direction. Do we really want Ireland to become a replica of the south of England where all the suburbs join up? At some point, it seems reasonable to say at global and local level that we should strive for a preferred population size and density.

I see you live in Wicklow, do you really want your grand-kids and great-grand-kids living off soylent green while looking for a seat in Zanzibar?

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

That doesn't quite fit with the strange spectacle of crowds of people gathering to sing and dance outside Dublin castle after the referendum result.

Why would it?

I suspect you are pretending, like a few others on boards.ie have done, that what they were celebrating was abortion itself.

What they were ACTUALLY celebrating, and they very much should be celebrating it, was the result of hard work..... that we made the correct decision.... that a harmful and limiting piece of catholic influenced text was removed from our constitution...... and more.

NONE of celebrating those things in any way contradicts what I just wrote however.

recedite wrote: »

I mean, I'd vote for some sort of legalised assisted suicide provision for the terminally ill, but I'd consider it to be in very poor taste to celebrate a Yes result.

You might. I would not. People work very hard on getting the right thing put into law. They invest themselves heavily in the result. Sometimes emotionally. Some financially. Some with their time and resources sometimes. Some all of the above. And when they see their labor and investment come to fruition they can, do, and are perfectly justified in, celebrating the result. That YOU personally find it in bad taste is YOUR subjective standards likely fueled by you not liking the result. There is nothing bad taste about it.

recedite wrote: »

Speaking of which, if you are handy with a machete, they may be looking for volunteers soon to help with the national vasectomy program

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to do with this tangent, or how you are linking it back to my post.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the notion that we as a community should prefer women to have abortions because it costs us less money is even more alarming, and not one I think that would be endorsed by anyone who really values freedom of choice for women. Your freedom to choose the option that will cost me the least money is a watery kind of freedom.

You're in danger of going down a rabbithole on this one, but lets just say society has many different ways of distributing the costs and benefits of child rearing.
We already have the general taxpayer paying into the public education system, even if the taxpayer is childless.
But imagine a society that allowed generous tax credits to be added to the existing personal tax credit of a parent, one for each child dependent.
Or imagine if the state pension increased according to the number of offspring (children and grandchildren) the pensioner had in the workforce.
These might be be more realistic ways for society to allocate the costs/benefits.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have yet to meet anyone at all, even one person, let alone a nation, who is "pro abortion" though.

A poor choice of phrase, granted.

What I meant it that many people who voted Yes were reticent. Deliberalising so that a woman could express own choice doesn't necessarily mean society is for the smoothing out of every possible obstacle a woman might encounter on the way to expressing that choice.

So what, if she has to travel a bit to find a doctor? So what if every doctor in the country doesn't provide the service? So what if she has to look up a website so that a doctor doesn't have to waste his time and her money giving her a referral?


There is no mandate given for smoothing every possible bump in the road. Society can (and has) granted choice to the woman. And is entitled to set the terms under which that choice is enabled.

Doctors are businessmen as well as doctors. They ought to be entitled to decide whether or not to introduce a potentially business damaging (reputation / staff issues) activity into their premises.

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

A poor choice of phrase, granted.

What I meant it that many people who voted Yes were reticent. Deliberalising so that a woman could express own choice doesn't necessarily mean society is for the smoothing out of every possible obstacle a woman might encounter on the way to expressing that choice.

So what, if she has to travel a bit to find a doctor? So what if every doctor in the country doesn't provide the service? So what if she has to look up a website so that a doctor doesn't have to waste his time and her money giving her a referral?


There is no mandate given for smoothing every possible bump in the road. Society can (and has) granted choice to the woman. And is entitled to set the terms under which that choice is enabled.

why would we deliberately put obstacles in the way of somebody making a choice that we have agreed they should have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Doctors are businessmen as well as doctors. They ought to be entitled to decide whether or not to introduce a potentially business damaging (reputation / staff issues) activity into their premises.

how can providing abortion pills damage a doctors business? they only people who would know are the doctor and the patient.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

.. even then the local population is growing fast. We have a lot of immigrants ..

And if you take a walk around the wards of the Rotunda, you'll notice that a lot of the immigrants are having a lot of children, hence Ireland's "native" birth rate bucking the trend of most other developed and/or European countries.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I suspect you are pretending, like a few others on boards.ie have done, that what they were celebrating was abortion itself.
What they were ACTUALLY celebrating, and they very much should be celebrating it, was the result of hard work

No, you can't divorce one from the other. The campaign was to remove constitutional protection from the unborn, thereby introducing abortion as a "normal" elective medical service.

Sure, the campaign involved hard work and expense, but nobody actually celebrates those things. People naturally like to celebrate "a win". But there are times when a win should not be celebrated with that kind of gusto, like when it comes at the cost of somebody else (the unborn).

smacl

recedite wrote: »

And if you take a walk around the wards of the Rotunda, you'll notice that a lot of the immigrants are having a lot of children, hence Ireland's "native" birth rate bucking the trend of most other developed and/or European countries.

And these children are now all Irish citizens, same as you and me. Not sure what your point is here.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what, if she has to travel a bit to find a doctor?

In case you missed it, a large part of the Yes vote was that pregnant women would not have to travel for healthcare.