The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I did read it.

Your response did not indicate you did. So I can only take your word for it, which I am unlikely to do. But suffice to say that "making it up" is only one possibilility, but the point remains: Their saying it does not make it true.... wheher they are lying or genuinely believe it themselves or not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not evidence enough for nozz though. Nah, they're all just making it up or guessing :rolleyes:

Unfortunately the phrase "evidence shows" or "there is evidence" does not actually say what the evidence is. If you are aware of evidence then by all means present it. Vague references to it's existence serve no one however and certainly do not warrant you pretending the evidence simply is not good enough for me personally.

Because if the evidence is, as the rest of your quote suggests, merely the anecdotal claims of the people in question..... then you are just making a circular argument and quite an empty one.

However as I asked, and as usual you just moved to ignore it, why SHOULD someone who does not perform abortions be considered for any promotion into a role where that is a requirement?

seamus

gctest50 wrote: »

Do Irish doctors have that ?

No. Irish doctors don't make any kind of oath or declaration upon graduation. The Hippocratic oath or any modern incarnations are irrelevant.

Irish doctors are bound by the law and the rules of the Irish Medical council.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

No. Irish doctors don't make any kind of oath or declaration upon graduation. The Hippocratic oath or any modern incarnations are irrelevant.

Irish doctors are bound by the law and the rules of the Irish Medical council.

Not all doctors who graduate in england take it either.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unfortunately the phrase "evidence shows" or "there is evidence" does not actually say what the evidence is. If you are aware of evidence then by all means present it.

Yeah, cause the evidence would be made public I suppose. If I engaged with this nonsense you'd happily trade twenty or thirty essays back on fourth on whether or not there was sufficient evidence for Fiona Bruce to say what she did. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.

Vague references to it's existence serve no one however and certainly do not warrant you pretending the evidence simply is not good enough for me personally.

Because if the evidence is, as the rest of your quote suggests, merely the anecdotal claims of the people in question..... then you are just making a circular argument and quite an empty one.

Waffle.

....why SHOULD someone who does not perform abortions be considered for any promotion into a role where that is a requirement?

Because taking the life a healthy human being should never be a job requirement for MEDICAL professionals unless there is a MEDICAL NEED to preform one.

If medical staff are unwilling to preform abortions even when it is deemed medical necessary / justifiable.... then I feel they would of course be better off taking another career path.

pjohnson

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm prochoice but can't see this passing. I fear too many asshats on the repeal side will damage their cause. Obviously there are asshats on both sides but it's the repeal ones that will do the damage.

Yep the more militant repealers will do more harm than good I fear.

Grayson

pjohnson wrote: »

Yep the more militant repealers will do more harm than good I fear.

It's strange the way people think that. One of the biggest pro choice activists in the country (Bernadette Smith) has been arrested for harassing people entering the marie Stopes in Belfast. But it's the repealers who are the problem.

sunshine and showers

pjohnson wrote: »

Yep the more militant repealers will do more harm than good I fear.

I hear this "militant repealers will put everyone off" bit a lot.

Please do explain what you mean by it.

January

Before 12 weeks you can take a pill, it can be given in a GP's office, so no need for a waiting list.

If we take the 3,500 figure, that means that after 12 weeks we're looking at 280 (8% if we consider that 92% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks) abortions that need to be performed in a hospital or clinic. I don't think waiting lists would be long at all if we're looking at circ. 280 surgical abortions per year.

With regards to cost, same as any public procedure, free (inpatient day charge for the bed), if you have private insurance that could cover a private bed. With regards the pills then medical card fee of €2.00 or part of the DPS if not.

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.....

Maybe some medical professionals object to breaking their Hippocratic oath. ...

Do Irish doctors have that ?



This bit of it ?

And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."

However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

The Nazi doctor Josef Mengele escaped trial at Nuremberg and went on to practice as an abortionist in Beunos Airies.

But yeah, sure you could be right. Maybe it's only the method they object to not the taking of life.

SafeSurfer

January wrote: »

Before 12 weeks you can take a pill, it can be given in a GP's office, so no need for a waiting list.

If we take the 3,500 figure, that means that after 12 weeks we're looking at 280 (8% if we consider that 92% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks) abortions that need to be performed in a hospital or clinic. I don't think waiting lists would be long at all if we're looking at circ. 280 surgical abortions per year.

With regards to cost, same as any public procedure, free (inpatient day charge for the bed), if you have private insurance that could cover a private bed. With regards the pills then medical card fee of €2.00 or part of the DPS if not.

Looks like a bargain for this country.
Repeat abortions alone cost the NHS £1 million a week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143936/NHS-spends-1m-week-repeat-abortions-Single-women-using-terminations-form-contraceptive.html

SafeSurfer

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange the way people think that. One of the biggest pro choice activists in the country (Bernadette Smith) has been arrested for harassing people entering the marie Stopes in Belfast. But it's the repealers who are the problem.

What is the difference between a pro choice activist and a repealer?

B0jangles

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What is the difference between a pro choice activist and a repealer?

I believe that's a mistake; I think the poster is referring to Bernadette Smyth, prominent member of "Precious Life", an anti-abortion group.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/police-question-woman-arrested-near-marie-stopes-clinic-in-belfast-1.2296513

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tigger

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, cause the evidence would be made public I suppose. If I engaged with this nonsense you'd happily trade twenty or thirty essays back on fourth on whether or not there was sufficient evidence for Fiona Bruce to say what she did. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.



Waffle.



Because taking the life a healthy human being should never be a job requirement for MEDICAL professionals unless there is a MEDICAL NEED to preform one.

If medical staff are unwilling to preform abortions even when it is deemed medical necessary / justifiable.... then I feel they would of course be better off taking another career path.

the right to choose your career path

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

I think your copy/paste is broken, might be a virus or something ?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception

nope :

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;

THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.

SafeSurfer

B0jangles wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What is the difference between a pro choice activist and a repealer?

I believe that's a mistake; I think the poster is referring to Bernadette Smyth, prominent member of "Precious Life", an anti-abortion group.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/police-question-woman-arrested-near-marie-stopes-clinic-in-belfast-1.2296513

Oh of course. If it was a pro choice activist the fact that the charges were thrown out of court would have been mentioned as well as the fact that the woman being mentioned.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-33317597

B0jangles

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh of course. If it was a pro choice activist the fact that the charges were thrown out of court would have been mentioned as well as the fact that the woman being mentioned.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-33317597

I was just telling you who I thought the poster was talking about and linking to the incident under discussion. Sounds like you already knew who they were talking about anyway, don't know why you pretended you didn't.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Because taking the life a healthy human being should never be a job requirement for MEDICAL professionals unless there is a MEDICAL NEED to preform one.

Ultimately we need to move away from this idea that a medical professional's obligation is to protect life at all costs.

Their role is to facilitate the best interests of their patient, physically, mentally and emotionally.

And if someone is unable or unwilling to accept that, then they should pick another career.

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

I think your copy/paste is broken, might be a virus or something ?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception

nope :

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;

THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.

Maybe you missed the bit on the Wikipedia page where it says "as currently published by the World Medical Association".
Look at the original text as written as I said after WW2 in 1948.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, cause the evidence would be made public I suppose.

Ah classic conspiracy theory move there. Declare there is evidence, then appeal to narratives as to how and why it will not be available to anyone.

But in summary, you don't actually gots the evidence do'ya?

No, you simply see people claiming to be true, something you actually WANT to be true, so you accept it. 100% unadulterated straight up confirmation bias.

I however do not use, or believe, reports that are released without the underlying data. Even if they AGREE with or SUPPORT my own positions or arguments. If the evidence a report is based on is not available, the report is worthless to me.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Waffle.

Nice dismissal of a point you can not rebut. Your usual MO alas. But the fact is that anecdote is not evidence really, and simply them claiming it does not make it so.

And that it is a circular argument is anything but "waffle". It is blatantly clear. The evidence for the report is..... anecdote..... the evidence we should take the anecdote seriously...... is the report. How is that NOT circular?

But again, people CLAIMING they were not promoted for reason X are just assuming that because generally when management meet and discuss promotion (or lack of it) the employee is not privy to that conversation.

So people at times latch on to a narrative that explains the lack of promotion away to themselves. The woman I saw decided her lack of promotion was due to her being female, not due to her being relatively incompetent. Some blacks think it is because they are black. Some homosexuals because they are gay. Some evolution deniers because they do not accept evolution. And so on.

So let us see a report showing whether there actually is a trend in statistics showing they are denied promotion on this basis, rather than hearing them assert and declare this to be the reason and simply taking their individual anecdotal word for it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Because taking the life a healthy human being should never be a job requirement for MEDICAL professionals unless there is a MEDICAL NEED to preform one.

You are answering a completely different question to the one I asked which, weirdly enough, I wrote the above knowing you were going to do.

I did not ask whether the requirement SHOULD be a requirement. So you have answered something I did not asked.

What I did ask was IF it is a requirement, then why should any manager be expected to consider people for hire/promotion into the role who do not meet the requirement?

I see nothing wrong with, for example, looking at a medical professional and saying "Ok, you do not want to perform abortions in the role you are in now...... and that according to the act is your right......... but I have another role over here where I need people who DO do that procedure.... and hence I will not be considering you for that role".

So YOU see anything wrong with that? If so what, cause I sure don't.

SafeSurfer

B0jangles wrote: »

I was just telling you who I thought the poster was talking about and linking to the incident under discussion. Sounds like you already knew who they were talking about anyway, don't know why you pretended you didn't.

I googled it. The first result was about a teacher who had sex with a pupil.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bernadette-smith-sex-shame-teacher-3198109

I didn't pretend not to know anything.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe you missed the bit on the Wikipedia page where it says "as currently published by the World Medical Association". .....

as currently published by the World Medical Association :


https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/


.

ohnonotgmail

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe you missed the bit on the Wikipedia page where it says "as currently published by the World Medical Association".
Look at the original text as written as I said after WW2 in 1948.

maybe you missed the bit on the wikipedia page where it says:

The Hippocratic Oath has been superseded as a document of professional ethics by more extensive, regularly updated ethical codes issued by national medical associations, such as the AMA Code of Medical Ethics (first adopted in 1847), and the British General Medical Council's Good Medical Practice.

mahamageehad

Tigger wrote: »

...

if it is free and public are doctors and nurses really going to want to work in tgat field? can they opt out. im pro choice with reservations but if i worked hard to be a doctor or a nurse and got offered an abortion job id decline mainly because i just dont think id get job satisfaction.

On 8 committee they addressed this. I'd have to double check exact wording but they said GPs would possibly be able to prescribe the abortion pill. They also said that the option to conscientiously object would be available, and that currently about 10% of GPs in Ireland conscientiously objected to abortion in all circumstances. Most doctors believe that the 8th needs to go as it impacts patient care, but not all necessarily agree with abortion on request.

seamus wrote: »

...

But if contraception is completely free and sex education is universal, then abortion rates drop below the rates in areas where abortion is free and contraception is not. Unsurprisingly, women choose contraception above abortions where that choice exists.

So realistically, instead of just "free abortions for everyone!", contraception should be freely available to all men and women under 25 (or even 30?), and to medical card holders above that. Then combined with a sensible approach to providing abortions for free where the economic need is genuine; such as under-18s, students and those on low incomes.
...

The contraception point is super important, as is education. I was on a Twitter thread where people were outlining their difficulties with getting access to certain types of contraception (IUDs, tubal ligation, etc). I was personally told the coil was unsuitable for me coz I was "too young" and never had kids. Ladies Lounge women could tell more similar stories. Same for education, it needs to be more all encompassing and include things like healthy relationships and consent and sexual health rather than the shïte I got in school.

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange the way people think that. One of the biggest pro choice activists in the country (Bernadette Smith) has been arrested for harassing people entering the marie Stopes in Belfast. But it's the repealers who are the problem.

I agree, I don't get this "repealers are bad" logic at all. I'm not involved with any groups, but I am watching the 8 committee meetings and following along via Twitter and the amount of abuse I've gotten from the anti-choice side has been absolutely unreal. If anything, the carry on of some of them, (e.g. telling me I wouldn't be a real woman 'til I had a child, called a whöre for living with partner out of wedlock, thinly veiled racist arguments that I should start procreating immediately coz "the foreigners" will win otherwise, told I was a pervert for believing that there should be sex education in schools...) have strengthened my views on being pro-choice. One of the 8 committee members shared a death threat she received like. From people claiming to be pro-"life"? The mind boggles. Now, I'm not tarring them all with the same brush, I know a good few people who support the 8th or only exemptions based repeal and who are perfectly reasonable people, but so far I've seen more bad behaviour from that camp than the other.
I think mainly people have a dislike for some "public figures" that have spoken out for repeal (e.g. Una Mullally and Louise O'Neill) and therefore think everyone who supports is a super lefty?

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

....... wrote: »

Im still waiting on someone to elaborate on some examples of this.

I think we will be waiting a while...

I've heard this rubbish trotted out before around stuff like the repeal jumper on a grotto altar and a repeal sign being photographed by the rock of Cashel.

It's nonsense. If those things offend you more than the 8th amendment then you weren't really going to vote pro-choice in the first place. It's similar to the people who complained during the marriage equality campaign that they were so "sick of the Yes side" that they were going to vote no. It's bóllocks. :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a bit like the "Some of my best friends are gay, but those pro-gay marriage campaigners are all in-your-face and obnoxious so I am voting no" people, who in fact were always voting no and do not actually have any gay friends.

sunshine and showers

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a bit like the "Some of my best friends are gay, but those pro-gay marriage campaigners are all in-your-face and obnoxious so I am voting no" people, who in fact were always voting no and do not actually have any gay friends.

First the uppity gays wanted rights, now it's the uppity wimminz. What next!

SafeSurfer

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a bit like the "Some of my best friends are gay, but those pro-gay marriage campaigners are all in-your-face and obnoxious so I am voting no" people, who in fact were always voting no and do not actually have any gay friends.

First the uppity gays wanted rights, now it's the uppity wimminz. What next!

Next the unborn will be looking for rights.

Zubeneschamali

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next the unborn will be looking for rights.

The unborn what?

MayoSalmon

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The unborn what?

Have a think..

SafeSurfer

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The unborn what?

Pro choice to do what?

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Pro choice to do what?

To have the choice available

January

Jesus you'd swear this was a conversation between 6 year olds, not grown men and women.

gctest50

January wrote: »

Jesus you'd swear this was a conversation between 6 year olds, not grown men and women.

It's the same old trick you'd see across threads here and elsewhere

- try get the thread closed if they get caught out misleading

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe you missed the bit on the Wikipedia page where it says "as currently published by the World Medical Association". .

https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/



.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next the unborn will be looking for rights.

Ooh, very clever. :rolleyes:

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

January wrote: »

Jesus you'd swear this was a conversation between 6 year olds, not grown men and women.

It's the same old trick you'd see across threads here and elsewhere

- try get the thread closed if they get caught out misleading

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva, which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

Don't misrepresent me. That is the original 1948 text.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Don't misrepresent me. That is the original 1948 text.

You either :

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice


this is what you said :

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva,

which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

no mention of any other version


The Declaration of Geneva

like The Queen of England or The Pope






It's like saying the Pope was a footballer, then being caught out and going " no no not Pope Benny , Pope John Paul"

PopePalpatine

Weirdly enough, the top result on Google after searching for "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception" is for a circumcision body, and the top result on DuckDuckGo is from "God's Word To Women".

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Don't misrepresent me. That is the original 1948 text.

You either :

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice


this is what you said :

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From the declaration of Geneva,

which updated the oath following WW2

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

no mention of any other version


The Declaration of Geneva

like The Queen of England or The Pope






It's like saying the Pope was a footballer, then being caught out and going " no no not Pope Benny , Pope John Paul"

Yes, like the pope following WW2 or the king following WW2.

The third possibility (c) is that I stated "from the declaration of Geneva which updated the oath following WW2"

I referenced the declaration, note small d, from which I was quoting, which is the original declaration and contains the exact phrase that I quoted.

When you dismissed this as untrue with the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva I suggested you missed the Wikipedia page text where it says this is the amended version.

So again I would ask you not to accuse me of deliberately trying to mislead because you misunderstood.

SafeSurfer

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Weirdly enough, the top result on Google after searching for "I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception" is for a circumcision body, and the top result on DuckDuckGo is from "God's Word To Women".

The top results I got from both Google and DuckDuckGo when searching for

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception

was the Geneva Declaration.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva ......

Again trying to make it look like it was done yesterday (14th October 2017 revision ),

been like that for years (since the 2005 revision )

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

the amended, present day Declaration of Geneva ......

Again trying to make it look like it was done yesterday (14th October 2017 revision ),

been like that for years (since the 2005 revision )

Where did I try to make it look like it was amended yesterday? Really, you have boxed yourself into a corner and are now you just being silly.

It's ok if you are too embarrassed to admit you misunderstood. The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

..............

The since conception bit was actually amended in 1984 I believe.

Now we're getting somewhere

A: didn't know it was updated or

B: you deliberately pasted in the version that suited you and hoped no-one would notice

( and reference vaguely )

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

.... I suggested you missed the Wikipedia page text where it says this is the amended version. .....

It doesn't say "this is the amended version "

It says " Retrieved 14 October 2017 "

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Now we're getting somewhere

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

I don't see what you are finding so difficult to comprehend.

If I referenced the constitution following 1937 as opposed to the "present day" constitution most people wouldn't go all "conspiracy theory", cross between Jessica Fletcher and Colombo on it.

gctest50

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are being childish in my opinion. You criticise me for referring to the amended "present day" declaration, saying I am trying to make it look like it was done yesterday, when "present day" specifies the declaration as it stands today, because it has been amended many times. The 1948 declaration following WW2 specifies the declaration as it was then.

................

SafeSurfer wrote: »

because it has been amended many times. .............

Why make some odd reference to the 1948 version of Declaration of Geneva when you knew it had been amended many times ?

Sweetemotion

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately we need to move away from this idea that a medical professional's obligation is to protect life at all costs.

Their role is to facilitate the best interests of their patient, physically, mentally and emotionally.

And if someone is unable or unwilling to accept that, then they should pick another career.

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Life is life, If a mother of a one year old can't look after her baby because she isn't physically, mentally and emotionally ready for it. That kid is out off the womb but would die without care. Should a medical professional just kill that child in the best interests of their patient?

How about people in comas with brain damage, should they just turn off their machines and be done it?

What about people wanting euthanasia, should they do that also, no questions asked? Just here you go knock yourself out.

you do make the most ridiculous false equivalences.

SafeSurfer

gctest50 wrote: »

Why make some odd reference to the 1948 version of Declaration of Geneva when you knew it had been amended many times ?

gctest50, I don't want to turn this thread into a ping pong match between you and me. I referenced the 1948 declaration because this was an attempt to agree an updated Hippocratic oath in the aftermath of WW2.
We were discussing the Hippocratic Oath when you argued
"the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself"
The World Medical Association left no room for ambiguity in their updated Hippocratic Oath where the agreed text was

"I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

You question my bringing up an unambiguous 1948 text in my argument but I will not question your right to bring up a 2000 year old Greek text which could be interpreted as being opposed to abortion, which is the consensus, or opposed to only one method of abortion which is your view.

So there you have it. I think its about time we gave this thread back to other contributors. If you want any clarification feel free to pm.