Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

ohnonotgmail

Igotadose wrote: »

It's 3 visits. I agree seems kind of high, and the bullsh1t 3 day 'waiting period', if removed, would reduce it to 2 visits. But, it's something I suppose and can always be changed now that the 8th is gone.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/gps-will-be-asked-to-opt-in-to-provide-abortions-at-450-each-37530347.html

The opt-in thing is crap. Dr's. should be required to dispense the pills. Lose there license if they won't.

I think you may find that some doctors opposition to providing abortions has suddenly disappeared.

Loafing Oaf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

€450 to dispense 2 pills?

Well there's a lot of consultation and whatnot as well.:p
I'd imagine most pro-choice people would welcome such a substantial fee as encouraging broadest possible participation by GPs in the project, even if they're not wildly enthused about funnelling yet more taxpayers' money into doctors' pockets.

Igotadose

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you may find that some doctors opposition to providing abortions has suddenly disappeared.

Writing letters to them is bullsh1t anyway. First off, that costs $$ for some HSE beauradrones to write (no doubt after 10 levels of approval and 3 reviews). And then, will the Dr's. have to write back? It's just gubbermint busy-work and pointless. If a Dr. doesn't want to dispense healthcare by providing abortion services, do they reply to the letters? And if so, can we get to see which Dr's say no under FOI? Etc etc.

All unnecessary twaddle; a woman comes to her Dr., asks for abortion pills, if the Dr's not got his board approval (training, however it is), the Dr refers her on to someone that does. Not 'sorry missy go home for 3 days and feel worse about this, then come back.'

All due to the endless clutching grasp of the RCC abusing women again and again and again....

volchitsa

Igotadose wrote: »

It's 3 visits. I agree seems kind of high, and the bullsh1t 3 day 'waiting period', if removed, would reduce it to 2 visits. But, it's something I suppose and can always be changed now that the 8th is gone.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/gps-will-be-asked-to-opt-in-to-provide-abortions-at-450-each-37530347.html

The opt-in thing is crap. Dr's. should be required to dispense the pills. Lose there license if they won't.

Lot of money alright, but I imagine it's the same thinking that led Nye Bevin to say, rather bitterly, that he had "stuffed the doctors' mouths with gold" in order to overcome their - no doubt highly principled - opposition to setting up the NHS.

Money talks.

aloyisious

Today's Irish Indo had a report with a statement from the [Irish] College of General Practitioners said that due to the slow rate of training its members on the way the new abortion practices were to be handled [read advice etc] by them in respect of patients seeking abortions, it might be mid-January before the practices allowable under the new law could be put into practice. Regrettably I again don't have the online access to post/print a verbatim account of the article.

aloyisious

It seems some GP doctors are absolutely in the NO camp. Listening to some GP's on Sunday, one suggested the time spent with a doctor should be an hour, that ten minutes was not long enough to discuss the patients request and she was minded to use the hour counselling the woman at the meeting not to go through with an abortion but instead go through full-term with the pregnancy.

Today in the Dail, Mattie McGrath got upset with a statement from Leo [seemingly about delaying tactics being used in the debate there] and asked him to withdraw it. The Chair got involved, telling off Mattie for bad behaviour [take your seat deputy - this is not Ballymagash].

Hotblack Desiato

A small number of GPs being very noisy about this.

Shameful that a medical professional would seek to impose their own view onto a vulnerable patient, that deserves nothing short of strike off.

Hotblack Desiato

Live now on Oireachtas TV.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Live now on Oireachtas TV.

Surely, my dear chap, live on oireachtas telly is a contradiction in terms!

Hotblack Desiato

That appears to have been the final Dail vote. 90-15 and the Bill goes to the Seanad.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-passes-landmark-bill-providing-for-access-to-abortion-1.3721628

The Cush

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That appears to have been the final Dail vote. 92-15 and the Bill goes to the Seanad.

90 - 15 with 12 abstensions

volchitsa

The Cush wrote: »

90 - 15 with 12 abstensions

So, 90 to 27 (pushing it a bit) then?
That's pretty conclusive I'd say.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah had 90-to-15 in my head and typed 92-15 :rolleyes:

Igotadose

A group of pro-choice GP's had to move their meeting yesterday due to threats. That didn't take long: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctors-discussing-abortion-legislation-move-scheduled-meeting-to-secret-location-890126.html

Here's the group's position paper. I'm no GP but their objections seem sound to me and based on science not dogma: http://startireland.ie/resources/start%20position%20paper.pdf

aloyisious

Three Senators declared opposition to the bill in the Seanad so far. Ronan wants to know from the Minister why abortion is the only thing being funded by the Health Dept.

robindch

Simon Harris is to legislate for "exclusion zones" of unspecified size around clinics where abortions are to be performed:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harris-to-legislate-for-safe-zones-around-abortion-services-1.3723069

Irish Times wrote:

Minister for Health Simon Harris has pledged to bring forward legislation to provide for so-called exclusion zones around premises where women are receiving abortion care. The Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill entered the Seanad on Thursday for the final stage of debate before it passes into law. Mr Harris used his speech in the Seanad to promise that “safe zones” would be introduced.

“I do intend to legislate for safe access zones. I have received a Government decision to do that,” Mr Harris said. “They’re also known as exclusion zones but they are safe access zones for doctors and so that women can access the health service in a safe manner, and have their access not be impeded. I did make a decision after engaging with colleagues to do that in a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation. It will be health legislation, I will bring it forward, I will sponsor it in Cabinet. I intend to introduce it in 2019. I think it’s very important that people can go about their work, and access their health services without being in any way obstructed,” he added.

Senators debated the Bill that passed through the Dail on Wednesday night. Labour Senator Ivana Bacik became emotional as she said that 29 years ago, both she and her colleagues in the Trinity Students’ Union were threatened with prison for giving information about abortion to pregnant women. She said women were desperate for information on clinics in England, which was hard to get before the internet.

Independent Senator Ronan Mullen described the proposed law as “destructive”. “Politicians here want to create a notion of a right to choose that completely disregards an innocent, invisible but no-less-human creature.”

Independent Senator David Norris raised concerns over the issue of conscientious objection. He said the legislation had been rushed. Mr Norris also said there should be dedicated abortion clinics in Ireland as some GPs and pharmacists objected to providing the service. He said he was “strongly in favour of a woman’s right to choose” but that he also appreciates the issue of conscientious objection. He also described the three-day waiting period as “daft.”

Mr Harris again addressed the concerns that had been raised around conscientious objection.

“People who conscientiously object do not need to play a role in that but there cannot be a situation where they would obstruct a woman accessing a legal health service or where a woman seeking help, often in a crisis situation, perhaps having been raped, would be shown the door or given the cold shoulder. We need to have a situation where conscientious objection is absolutely respected but not obstruction, and they are different issues,” he said.

The debate in the Seanad continues next week.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But there won't be anyone in FG opposing the legislation and at most one or two in FF. Virtually anyone in the main parties with a major issue with the legislation is already outside the party.

just looking at the results of what I presume is the final vote on the legislation in the Dail on the Oireachtas website:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/vote/dail/32/2018-12-05/186/

Went generally as I anticipated, with, I think, three FF 'nils'. There was also a clutch of abstentions, all FF AFAIK, which I hadn't been expecting, but I don't suppose it matters...

Hotblack Desiato

#MakeNMHOurs march tomorrow, Sat 8th 2pm at Dublin Spire

There is no way we will accept a €350m public hospital going under the control of a "trust" like the nuns and "brothers" used to secure their assets while insulating themselves from the consequences of their abuses.

Public hospital - public ownership. No more handing over public assets to unaccountable "trusts".

No promises as to "ethos" can be believed, and no ownership of a hospital built from the ground up by taxpayers other than by taxpayers is acceptable.

Hotblack Desiato

Yes terribly late notice once again but I'm a full time worker and parent, only a very part time protestor

The Cush

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Went generally as I anticipated, with, I think, three FF 'nils'. There was also a clutch of abstentions, all FF AFAIK, which I hadn't been expecting, but I don't suppose it matters...

4 Fianna Fáil Níl - Mary Butler, Marc MacSharry, John McGuinness, Éamon Ó Cuív

All 12 Abstains were Fianna Fáil

Loafing Oaf

The Cush wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Went generally as I anticipated, with, I think, three FF 'nils'. There was also a clutch of abstentions, all FF AFAIK, which I hadn't been expecting, but I don't suppose it matters...

4 Fianna Fáil Níl - Mary Butler, Marc MacSharry, John McGuinness, Éamon Ó Cuív

All 12 Abstains were Fianna Fáil

Though dev og had been expelled from ff but seemingly he’s just been sacked from the front bench. Surprised at mcguinness as he hadn’t been publicly wrestling with his conscience over this: if I was being cynical I would suggest defying his dear leader might be part of his motivation

Igotadose

The Cush wrote: »

4 Fianna Fáil Níl - Mary Butler, Marc MacSharry, John McGuinness, Éamon Ó Cuív

All 12 Abstains were Fianna Fáil

If I don't see my TD's name recorded in the vote, does that mean he/she wasn't present?

The Cush

Igotadose wrote: »

If I don't see my TD's name recorded in the vote, does that mean he/she wasn't present?

Wasn't present in the chamber for the vote.

Hotblack Desiato

From my constituency, Dublin Mid-West, FF TD John Curran voted against allowing us to have a referendum, but abstained on the legislation to give effect to that referendum

Logic.

He'll lose his seat next time out (if he doesn't retire.) SDs have a good chance of a gain here.

antiskeptic

robindch's quote wrote:

“People who conscientiously object do not need to play a role in that but there cannot be a situation where they would obstruct a woman accessing a legal health service or where a woman seeking help, often in a crisis situation, perhaps having been raped, would be shown the door or given the cold shoulder. We need to have a situation where conscientious objection is absolutely respected but not obstruction, and they are different issues,” he said.

The are indeed different issues but somehow or the other the one issue ( a rape) manages to be ranked in importance above the other issue ( a conscientious objection).

It would be good if the claimant here could "show their work".

"Shown the door" and "cold shoulder" doesn't quite cut it.

Hotblack Desiato

Would you go and sh!te.

The interests of a rape victim rank way above the "moral" objections of a doctor.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

The are indeed different issues but somehow or the other the one issue ( a rape) manages to be ranked in importance above the other issue ( a conscientious objection).

It would be good if the claimant here could "show their work".

"Shown the door" and "cold shoulder" doesn't quite cut it.

In respect of your first sentence above, a clear difference in importance is that the woman is pregnant and the C/O is not. That is a clear ranking of importance where it comes to medical procedure decisions over personal conscience decisions.

This issue revolves around a pregnant woman having any right to decide what she can do about her pregnancy as distinct from a member of the medical profession feeling he/she has an antecedent right to decide what the pregnant woman can do when that medical professional becomes involved in any way connected to the pregnant woman requesting the medical profession to assist her with an abortion.

One argument was made in this thread about a C/O doctor in a GP's practice declining to provide pregnant women seeking an abortion any assistance to the extent that he/she would refuse the referral name of another GP to visit as it would mean getting involved at a distance in assisting the woman in respect of abortion. The argument ran to the extent that the Dr would ensure no staff member of the GP's practice would provide the woman with information.

Where do you draw the line which any medical professional CANNOT cross in respect of a claim of ethical conscientious objection to abortion?

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

The are indeed different issues but somehow or the other the one issue ( a rape) manages to be ranked in importance above the other issue ( a conscientious objection).

What a strange thing to say.

The former is far more important than the latter, which is of dubious ethical value outside of military conscription anyway. HSoldiers who were called up to the front during war have some right to have their pacificism recognised, but volunteer soldiers, who could have chosen a different line of work do not. Ditto with doctors, who are not, AFAIAA, ever conscripted to work in obstetrics. So the simplistic extrapolation from conscripted soldiers is a morally dubious one anyway.

And that's before considering that the rape victim deserves help just so as to avoid compounding the first crime committed against her. Her needs should always be considered more important than the doctor's "right" to CO.

wench

No prizes for guessing which bishop still thinks church trumps state when it comes to the law...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bishop-urges-professionals-to-resist-abortion-laws-37609932.html