Why do 85% of GPs not provide abortion services? - mod warning in OP (01/01/20)

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you want the fairly lucrative contract to provide medical services, you should be providing a full range of GP services.

It will never form part of a GPs contract.

Two GPs work in a town, one private, one with a GMS contract, the one paid by the Government is forced to provide abortions against his/her will/beliefs , the private one is not. The Government therefore would be forcing GPs to provide abortions if they want to be paid, there isn’t a politician on this Earth stupid enough to propose that in Ireland, nor a GP who would agree to it.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

People should be able to use their own GP for all services, where it is technically feasible that the GP can provide the service. People shouldn't have to travel to other parts of town and starting from scratch on their medical history unnecessarily.

Why? Some GPs are more interested in some things that others. My own is very good with gynaecological issues has has steered me though the system very well in the past. But she's not so hot on orthopaedics, and I'll likely be seeking a 2nd opinion on some current issues.

Medical histories are easily enough transferred. And it's not as though "your" GP actually remembers your history anyway - they may pretend to, but really they're either consulting their notes or bluffing in many cases.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you want the fairly lucrative contract to provide medical services, you should be providing a full range of GP services.

Fairly lucrative? Now you're really having a laugh.

And besides, most people are private patients, and aren't covered by any contract at all.

AndrewJRenko

Dav010 wrote: »

You could be right. Because it is such an emotive issue, many current GPs may either object or just simply decide not to offer a procedure which they have not provided previously in their professional careers. But new grads will be trained for this, and Doctors going through GP training will see this procedure more often. But I agree, it will be the decision of the GP, either on moral, religious or practically grounds.

All GPs have to do CPD training every year. Training is not limited to new GPs.

thomasdylan wrote: »

Medical card contract rates aren't lucrative at all though. There's lots of complaints from GPs about it and there's also a massive shortage of GPS.

Seems fairly lucrative to me.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/revealed-top-earning-gp-practice-in-medical-card-scheme-made-over-1-1m-last-year-37559776.html

thomasdylan wrote: »

The decision to provide abortion is a moral one and morality is subjective. Forcing someone to go against their own ethical beliefs on abortion is wrong.

No-one would be forced to go against their ethical beliefs. If they want to hold their ethical beliefs, fair play to them - they just have to face the reality that they've excluded themselves for eligibility for government contracts.

Dav010 wrote: »

It will never form part of a GPs contract.

Two GPs work in a town, one private, one with a GMS contract, the one paid by the Government is forced to provide abortions against his/her will/beliefs , the private one is not. The Government therefore would be forcing GPs to provide abortions if they want to be paid, there isn’t a politician on this Earth stupid enough to propose that in Ireland, nor a GP who would agree to it.

You might be right that no politician would have the cojones to propose it, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. No-one would be forced to provide the service. But if they want the Government contract, they'd need to be prepared to take this on.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why? Some GPs are more interested in some things that others. My own is very good with gynaecological issues has has steered me though the system very well in the past. But she's not so hot on orthopaedics, and I'll likely be seeking a 2nd opinion on some current issues.

Medical histories are easily enough transferred. And it's not as though "your" GP actually remembers your history anyway - they may pretend to, but really they're either consulting their notes or bluffing in many cases.

Certainly, there is room for specialisation - but this seems like a fairly straightforward, not hugely technical or specialised service.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And besides, most people are private patients, and aren't covered by any contract at all.

That's the beauty of this approach. Most GPs service public and private patients. So if they are nudged into providing the service for public patients, they are also going to be happy to earn a few extra quid for providing the same service for private patients.

AulWan

How many practices are single GP practices?

My GP practice has five full time GPs. Out of the five I know with certainty that one of them does provide the service.

They do seem to have specific roles within the practice, there is one specific doctor who takes all the under sixes, and one who does not take medical card patients and then there is a younger female doctor and two more younger male doctors.

Maybe abortion services are allocated within the practice?

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

All GPs have to do CPD training every year. Training is not limited to new GPs.


Seems fairly lucrative to me.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/revealed-top-earning-gp-practice-in-medical-card-scheme-made-over-1-1m-last-year-37559776.html



No-one would be forced to go against their ethical beliefs. If they want to hold their ethical beliefs, fair play to them - they just have to face the reality that they've excluded themselves for eligibility for government contracts.




You might be right that no politician would have the cojones to propose it, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. No-one would be forced to provide the service. But if they want the Government contract, they'd need to be prepared to take this on.

Certainly, there is room for specialisation - but this seems like a fairly straightforward, not hugely technical or specialised service.




That's the beauty of this approach. Most GPs service public and private patients. So if they are nudged into providing the service for public patients, they are also going to be happy to earn a few extra quid for providing the same service for private patients.

Ireland didn’t vote for abortion, it voted for choice, you cannot impose your beliefs on someone else. If GPs consciously object to providing the service, that is their choice and they cannot be punished either professionally or financially for exercising that right to choose.

CPD training is not the same as undergraduate or GP scheme training.

It is naive to pick one Clinic and say that is an example of GPs being well paid. You should have read in that article that the €1.1m is practice income, not one GP, but between six.

If it was that well paid, why is there a crisis in diminishing numbers of GPs. Google is your friend, you will find studies that show a significant number of GPs are within 5 years of retirement and there is no where near the numbers being trained to replace them. Doctors are rejecting the GP speciality, or emigrating after completing their training.

The Government will not insert that into a contract, even if they did, GPs would only be required to provide it to Med Card patients. The GMS contract has no effect on services provided to non Med card patients and if the GP does not want to provide the service, and is as well paid as you think, they will not provide a the service privately.

Richard Hillman

Is it cost effective? How long does an abortion take? How much does it cost for the doctor and the patient? Would it not be more cost effective in spending the time dealing with people who just need a sicknote for work? 10mins,you're out, 60 quid please, next.

Loafing Oaf

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Is it cost effective? How long does an abortion take? How much does it cost for the doctor and the patient? Would it not be more cost effective in spending the time dealing with people who just need a sicknote for work? 10mins,you're out, 60 quid please, next.

GPS reportedly receive €450 per abortion; it's free for the patient.

lozenges

AulWan wrote: »

How many practices are single GP practices?

My GP practice has five full time GPs. Out of the five I know with certainty that one of them does provide the service.

They do seem to have specific roles within the practice, there is one specific doctor who takes all the under sixes, and one who does not take medical card patients and then there is a younger female doctor and two more younger male doctors.

Maybe abortion services are allocated within the practice?

Yup. Very few GPs work in a single practice any more, and more and more they develop a special interest, eg 1 GP in the practice with a special interest in dermatology, 1 with a special interest in minor ops etc. So likely the GP who already has a special interest in ob/gynae in the practice would take it on.

I also strongly suspect that the reason why many GPs haven't taken it up has less to do with moral objections and more to do with the extra workload and training involved. They are an extremely stretched service and many were very dissatisfied with the GMS contract and introduction of free care for under sixes.

Albhabeth

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Is it cost effective? How long does an abortion take? How much does it cost for the doctor and the patient? Would it not be more cost effective in spending the time dealing with people who just need a sicknote for work? 10mins,you're out, 60 quid please, next.

It takes two 45 minute appointments with the doctor (which could easily be one if the requirement for a waiting period was removed.) Your pregnancy is confirmed and dated, then the procedure and risks are explained to you.

The actual abortion itself took around six hours from taking the second pill to the expulsion of womb contents. This takes place at home, not in a clinic or hospital setting.

It was free at the point of use for patient (as is all maternity/pregnancy related medical care) for the whole process in a women's centre but I'm not sure if individual GPs charge for initial appointment.

This was all pre 9 weeks and I think it's different and am not sure about how it works if the woman is 9-12 weeks pregnancy.

uptherebels

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The tax payer shouldnt be funding this, should be paid for by the client or charities who only live off donations from people who agree with it.

Most (all?) maternity services are paid for by the taxpayer. This one is no different.

Wesser

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the reason at all why issues around abortion are such a time sensitive issue, it’s simply because of the fact that a termination of a pregnancy can only be considered within the time frame of a woman being pregnant, and the sooner a termination of pregnancy is provided, the better the outcome for the woman.

Other conditions simply aren’t as time sensitive as pregnancy and that’s why the idea of ‘waiting lists’ for a termination of pregnancy will tell you precisely nothing, and cannot be compared to waiting lists for other conditions, nothing to do with being controversial or “being linked with feminism”, it’s simply a fact that there are far more practical concerns involved in pregnancy.

of course other conditions are time sensitive.

rectal bleeding. could be rectal cancer. earlier diagnosis eq better outcomes. no.stats being released about what percentage of hospital doctors do scopes.

endometriosis. best treated early. 2 year waiting list to see a gynaecologist.

rhumatoid arthritis. best to stsrt methotrexate within 2 weeks.


i have yet to hear of any woman not getting her abortion in the community because not enoigh doctors. maybe there is... the figures will come out this year and show us. maybe a handful had to.go to the hospital.

this headline is appalingly written. only 15% of gp s signed up. appears to put the blame at the doorstep of the overworked gp. nobody ever says ' only 50 % of gynaecologists are signed up to treat condition x' . a

Any deficiency in the service is the result of the overload of primary care services caused by the politically driven under 6s card. gp s so overloaded with seeing children that they dont have the capacity to take on any extra services. yet this headline makes the gp s look lazy and morally corrupt. scaoe goating.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t come under professional ethics that a medical professional can be compelled to provide services they do not wish to provide. That would simply be unethical in and of itself. Specifically in cases where abortion services are concerned, a conscientious objection is provided for by both the Irish Medical Council and Irish Law -

If it's only specifically, then it's not a general point at all, so your first sentence is not true, except for those specific exceptions. Which was my point.

Your language is fairly vague, and I don’t know what you mean when you say I’m making stuff up (again?) when these are the facts -

Have you forgotten your claims about studies which you were unable to back up but more importantly, where you repeatedly ignored studies that flatly contradicted your claims and explanations about much the same subject as this, ie sex, contraception and abortion?

Only ten out of the 19 maternity units in the country offer full termination services while the others offer care, supervision and manage complications arising from abortions.

Health Service Executive data shows that as of 13 December, 348 GPs had signed the contract to provide abortion services, which represents only 15% of GPs nationwide.

It seems entirely reasonable to conclude that medical professionals cannot be compelled to provide services they do not wish to provide, and they cannot be compelled to provide, and they are unwilling to provide those services due to the risk of litigation given they are not indemnified from prosecution. Oh, and insurance - insurance is already expensive as it is, and litigious claims don’t make the cost of insurance any cheaper, nor does insurance indemnify any medical professional from any civil or criminal liability. It’s entirely reasonable to conclude that given those numerous factors, medical professionals are more comfortable with some risks than they are with others, and it would be unethical to compel medical professionals to take risks which they have a conscientious objection to, which is why they aren’t obligated to provide services they do not wish to provide.

I don’t see how attempting to force medical professionals to provide services they do not wish to provide is in any way acting in a patients best interests tbh, far more likely that their needs would be better served by the small number of medical professionals who are willing to provide those services in spite of the risks to them both professionally and personally.

I don't agree that your links prove your speculative conclusions at all, and as I say, we've already seen how determined you are to prove your beliefs on this subject to be correct despite contradictory evidence. I'm sure you probably believe it, FWIW - but you're just not reliable on this because of your own anti choice bias. You argue from your conclusions and ignore anything that goes against those.

One eyed Jack

Wesser wrote: »

of course other conditions are time sensitive.

rectal bleeding. could be rectal cancer. earlier diagnosis eq better outcomes. no.stats being released about what percentage of hospital doctors do scopes.

endometriosis. best treated early. 2 year waiting list to see a gynaecologist.

rhumatoid arthritis. best to stsrt methotrexate within 2 weeks.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that other conditions aren’t time sensitive. I was making the point that time sensitivity when it comes to issues regarding pregnancy have nothing to do with feminism or any perceived controversy.

Wesser wrote: »

i have yet to hear of any woman not getting her abortion in the community because not enoigh doctors. maybe there is... the figures will come out this year and show us. maybe a handful had to.go to the hospital.

The figures are already out - given there are only a small number of GPs willing to provide a full range of services, and half the number of maternity units in the country do not provide a full range of services means that it stands to reason that there are women who are not being provided with services in their communities. It’s also a reality that some women will prefer not to attend their regular GP to avail of services because they fear being judged, which I’ll admit is just bizarre reasoning as it’s not as though their GP doesn’t have access to their full medical history anyway, which is necessary to provide their patients with appropriate medical care.

Wesser wrote: »

this headline is appalingly written. only 15% of gp s signed up. appears to put the blame at the doorstep of the overworked gp. nobody ever says ' only 50 % of gynaecologists are signed up to treat condition x' . a

That’s not the headline of the article in the opening post, this is -

Rotunda Master says 'Floodgates didn't open' when abortion services introduced

And there doesn’t appear to be any apportioning blame to anyone in the article for the low number of GPs and half the number of maternity services willing to provide services. The people commenting in the article appear to view the figures as a positive outcome as opposed to any negative perception.

Wesser wrote: »

Any deficiency in the service is the result of the overload of primary care services caused by the politically driven under 6s card. gp s so overloaded with seeing children that they dont have the capacity to take on any extra services. yet this headline makes the gp s look lazy and morally corrupt. scaoe goating.

There are deficiencies in the services, but I don’t think it can solely be put down to the overload on primary care services. Provision of the services doesn’t require that much more capacity than is already available. It’s far more reasonable to assume that GPs and maternity units don’t provide a full range of services simply because they choose not to provide those services. I don’t think that makes GPs look lazy or morally corrupt or any of the rest of that nonsense. It’s simply the case that much like the way it was suggested to people ’if they don’t want an abortion, don’t have one’, the same rationale applies equally to GPs who don’t want to provide abortion services - they don’t. No scapegoating or anything else, their position is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

thomasdylan

volchitsa wrote: »

Actually there is. It comes under professional ethics, for starters. If some medical treatment which is adapted to the patient's needs is refused due to the doctor's personal wishes or beliefs, that's a potential FTP charge.

You're very misinformed here. The Irish medical Council have guidelines on contentious objection regarding abortion (and other things). No doctor has to perform a procedure which that have a strong and genuine moral objection to. Its not a potentual fitness to practice charge. No doctor is going to get hauled in front of the medical Council for not wanting to prescribe abortion pills. And they shouldn't.

Lillydee

GPS like all doctors signed a code of conduct. They believe in, and want to help save and preserve life when it is feasible, and if possible for both lives.

I thank ‘someone’ for them, because only for them, BOTH me and my baby are alive. For the judgers, I’m a reluctant atheist.

volchitsa

thomasdylan wrote: »

You're very misinformed here. The Irish medical Council have guidelines on contentious objection regarding abortion (and other things). No doctor has to perform a procedure which that have a strong and genuine moral objection to. Its not a potentual fitness to practice charge. No doctor is going to get hauled in front of the medical Council for not wanting to prescribe abortion pills. And they shouldn't.

Nope, not misinformed at all, thank you. I wasn't denying that doctors have a legal right to conscientious objection, in fact I mentioned it more than once here.
My point was that this was not a general right not to provide medical services, but a very narrow list of exceptions to the general obligation to provide whatever medical care is indicated for the patient.

IOW medicine is not like a shop owner deciding not a stock a particular product or brand: healthcare professionals have a fundamental obligation to provide the services the patient needs, and the responsibility is on them to justify not providing one that falls within their professional remit.

Dav010

volchitsa wrote: »

Nope, not misinformed at all, thank you. I wasn't denying that doctors have a legal right to conscientious objection, in fact I mentioned it more than once here.
My point was that this was not a general right not to provide medical services, but a very narrow list of exceptions to the general obligation to provide whatever medical care is indicated for the patient.

IOW medicine is not like a shop owner deciding not a stock a particular product or brand: healthcare professionals have a fundamental obligation to provide the services the patient needs, and the responsibility is on them to justify not providing one that falls within their professional remit.

Hence the reason why Jack used the word “specifically” when posting “Specifically in cases where abortion services are concerned, a conscientious objection is provided for by both the Irish Medical Council and Irish Law -“

In relation to this procedure, GPs do not have an obligation to provide it, if they consciously object to it.

GPs must inform patients requesting abortions if they do not provide them, refer the patient to a Clinic/GP who does, and provide necessary advice and aftercare, they do not have to justify their decision. Before posting, you should read the guidelines given to GPs.

volchitsa

Dav010 wrote: »

Hence the reason why Jack used the word “specifically” when posting “Specifically in cases where abortion services are concerned, a conscientious objection is provided for by both the Irish Medical Council and Irish Law -“

No, you're picking a much later post - my point was about the original, very general, claim which was about "all medical professionals" and said that it was about litigation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because litigation is a distinct possibility, and most GPs and hospitals will prefer to err on the side of caution to avoid expensive compensation claims and legal cases which would have adverse consequences for them personally and professionally. All medical professionals are averse to any liability for any consequences of their actions.

If the claim had been that it was because there was a conscientious objection clause in the law, then I would have replied to that, but it wasn't.

brightspark

volchitsa wrote: »

IOW medicine is not like a shop owner deciding not a stock a particular product or brand: healthcare professionals have a fundamental obligation to provide the services the patient needs, and the responsibility is on them to justify not providing one that falls within their professional remit.

It could be argued that in the case of GPs abortions would mainly fall under the category of patient "want" not "need", but to some extent that is largely irrelevant to the bigger picture.


Like it or not, many doctors do have strong moral objections to providing abortion services, perhaps strong enough for them to withdraw from practising medicine here completely if that was to be a service they were to become somehow obligated to provide.

Now perhaps if we had an excess of GPs then an either do it or quit rule could be applied, but there isn't.

Recently even as a private patient I has to wait a couple of days to get an appointment (and if I just wanted a check-up it would have been over a week). Forcing GPs out of the profession/country wouldn't be in the best interests of anyone.

If a baker closes shop because shey no longer want to be forced to make a cake with a message they disagree with, another baker will soon replace the gap in the market, but it's much quicker and cheaper to teach someone to bake than to train them as a GP.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

No, you're picking a much later post - my point was about the original, very general, claim which was about "all medical professionals" and said that it was about litigation.

You even quoted the post that shows my comments regarding all medical professionals was referencing the fact that they are averse to any liability for the consequences of their actions. They are, which is why some medical professionals are prepared and willing to take risks where other medical professionals aren’t.

Do you actually imagine that medical professionals want to be dealing with these sorts of cases -

Abortion investigation delayed by hospital’s inability to print records

Medical professionals will err on the side of caution rather than risk litigation. Some will just outright refuse to provide services altogether citing conscientious objections. You claimed it was being eroded, it’s not. It’s as I suggested, it would be unethical to attempt to compel medical professionals to provide services which they have a conscientious objection to, and I can’t see how it would be acting in the best interests of the patient either.

Annabella1

Have a relative who is a GP
Their Practice is not doing it as they are simply swamped with work especially U 6's
They have lost a doctor through retirement who hasn't been replaced
This is probably the most likely reason that numbers are low
A woman considering a termination rightly needs a lot of time which many doctors may not have

shesty

AulWan wrote: »

How many practices are single GP practices?

My GP practice has five full time GPs. Out of the five I know with certainty that one of them does provide the service.

They do seem to have specific roles within the practice, there is one specific doctor who takes all the under sixes, and one who does not take medical card patients and then there is a younger female doctor and two more younger male doctors.

Maybe abortion services are allocated within the practice?

This is a fair point.Our practice has a similar set up.I don't know if or who in the practice provides abortion services, but I know 2 of the doctors specialise in paediatric cases and one would specialise in pregnancy, family planning etc.I wonder are the stats broken down to account for this.

I would also agree with the last poster.Our GP practice is utterly swamped.Same day appointments are practically impossible to get, particularly wth 1 of the doctors in the practice.Abortion services require time...I know a previous poster said she was fine with it and then only needed a day off work but I suspect that might not be the norm - I know people who have had miscarraiges and had to take those pills and gone on to encounter problems for a few weeks afterwards.

Loafing Oaf

Annabella1 wrote: »

Have a relative who is a GP
Their Practice is not doing it as they are simply swamped with work especially U 6's
They have lost a doctor through retirement who hasn't been replaced
This is probably the most likely reason that numbers are low
A woman considering a termination rightly needs a lot of time which many doctors may not have

Yeah but by the laws of averages each participating GP is only seeing one or two abortion cases per month, and the more that sign up the lower this number gets.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You even quoted the post that shows my comments regarding all medical professionals was referencing the fact that they are averse to any liability for the consequences of their actions. They are, which is why some medical professionals are prepared and willing to take risks where other medical professionals aren’t.

But I already replied to that and you're just repeating yourself here. I was just pointing out to that other poster that your claim had been about all medical professionals, and not just about abortion.

Do you actually imagine that medical professionals want to be dealing with these sorts of cases -

Abortion investigation delayed by hospital’s inability to print records

Different issue, which I've replied to. Medicine is a risky business, where means can be guaranteed, but not outcomes. Risk and conscientious objection are two separate things which should not be conflated.

Medical professionals will err on the side of caution rather than risk litigation. Some will just outright refuse to provide services altogether citing conscientious objections. You claimed it was being eroded, it’s not. It’s as I suggested, it would be unethical to attempt to compel medical professionals to provide services which they have a conscientious objection to, and I can’t see how it would be acting in the best interests of the patient either.

Well, since you insist then: thing is, there is a circular argument being used here about CO and abortion.

My point is that to see whether CO is valid on its on merits, it needs to be applied to other possible cases of conscientious objection as well.
For example, if a surgeon were to object to carrying out blood transfusions except when the person's life is threatened, on the grounds that he was a Jehovah's Witness, should his CO be worked with by the hospital, or should he be expected to put his personal beliefs aside and do whatever is in the best interests of the patient?

Shefwedfan

So we have moved now from telling women what they can and can't do....

To telling doctors what they can and can't do. Not much progress at all.

Coming up with random "what if's" is not really relevant either. Nobody should be forced to do something like taking a life if they don't want to. Simple as that.

This was highlighted, prior, during and after the referendum so not sure what the surprise is.

volchitsa

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So we have moved now from telling women what they can and can't do....

To telling doctors what they can and can't do. Not much progress at all.

Coming up with random "what if's" is not really relevant either. Nobody should be forced to do something like taking a life if they don't want to. Simple as that.

This was highlighted, prior, during and after the referendum so not sure what the surprise is.

No, this logic doesn't work. The people have decided that abortion is not killing babies, so anyone who believes it is should not be working in gynaecology or obstetrics at all.

Just like someone who won't handle pork really shouldn't work in an abattoir or in pig farming.

Second, a patient who refuses a treatment is one thing. That's where personal choice comes in - for the patient, not the doctor. His involvement is professional, not personal.

If a doctor refuses, for his own personal reasons, to perform a treatment that the patient wants and that is medically indicated for that patient, that is a failure of professional ethics.

Lux23

I would say a lack of training might be a problem here. If you have only worked in Ireland, your experience with medical abortions would be zilch.

thomasdylan

volchitsa wrote: »

Nope, not misinformed at all, thank you. I wasn't denying that doctors have a legal right to conscientious objection, in fact I mentioned it more than once here.
My point was that this was not a general right not to provide medical services, but a very narrow list of exceptions to the general obligation to provide whatever medical care is indicated for the patient.

IOW medicine is not like a shop owner deciding not a stock a particular product or brand: healthcare professionals have a fundamental obligation to provide the services the patient needs, and the responsibility is on them to justify not providing one that falls within their professional remit.

Is there a narrow list of exemptions? Could you show me where to find it.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

My point is that to see whether CO is valid on its on merits, it needs to be applied to other possible cases of conscientious objection as well.
For example, if a surgeon were to object to carrying out blood transfusions except when the person's life is threatened, on the grounds that he was a Jehovah's Witness, should his CO be worked with by the hospital, or should he be expected to put his personal beliefs aside and do whatever is in the best interests of the patient?

You’re going to have to come up with a better example than the idea of a Jehovah’s Witness being a conscientious objector to carrying out blood transfusions - JW’s don’t have any issue carrying out blood transfusions on their patients, their objection is to themselves receiving blood transfusions.

I can think of an example though - I objected to potentially receiving a blood transfusion when I was having a hip replacement done. The consultant who was to perform the operation simply wished me luck as they were unwilling to perform the procedure while I was I was unwilling to give consent to a blood transfusion.

To me personally, their objection was perfectly acceptable, I didn’t blame them for not wanting to be responsible for me bleeding out on the table. You’re trying to argue that medical professionals should be compelled to provide treatment and care in circumstances which aren’t an emergency, in spite of their conscientious objection.

I don’t think medical professionals should be expected to put their personal beliefs to one side, as they’re just as human as their patients, and I don’t see how attempting to strong-arm medical professionals into doing something they object to could ever lead to a positive outcome either for medical professionals or patients. I don’t think portraying medical professionals as automatons without a conscience is particularly useful or helpful to the perception of the medical profession either tbh.

volchitsa

Lux23 wrote: »

I would say a lack of training might be a problem here. If you have only worked in Ireland, your experience with medical abortions would be zilch.

I remember that was one of the reasons that Dr Astbury (the consultant in the Savita Halappanavar case) was so reluctant to intervene surgically, having no experience of D&Es. Of course that wouldn't apply for medical abortions, which are much less complicated, but I imagine the need to make time for extra training would also help explain why busy GPs aren't rushing to provide that service.