[SUBMITTED] Medical Provider Conscience Act

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 3 seems a little too restrictive. I would make it only apply in time-critical operations."

(OOC: Attempted Socialism, there are both pro-life and pro-choice people with medical credentials. Also, this is a thread about the proposal being drafted, not abortion.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Fair point, but it does not mean they have to force others to do it. If they can find doctors willing to do it, there is no problem.

OOC: Except that existing resolutions don't allow for the "if". They require nations to get it done, no ifs about it. If that means that the nation has to force some doctors to go against their beliefs then that's the way it has to be. Besides, your 3.c. requires just such forcing anyway, if no volunteers appear.

That's bordering on discrimination, isn't it?

How the hell is it discrimination to treat everyone the same way? That is, requiring all doctors to do their damn job, regardless of their beliefs.

GAR# 35, "The Charter on Civil Rights," states ever so clearly in section c: "All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers."

That bit also catches up to you if you tried to call it discrimination. Making your nation compliant with existing resolutions is the very definition of a "compelling practical purpose".

I honestly don't think there would be many situations in which it would be necessary to force someone who doesn't want to to partake in a lethal injection. A government should already have specific people assigned to do that.

Exactly.

It shows that abortion is not really as essential of a function of gynecology as everyone seems to keep insisting it is.

Then what profession, pray tell, is it a function of?

You seem to imply by saying that that it is required for every doctor to be able to perform an abortion.

Lol, try again.

(in fact, the Bible does not say anything specifically forbidding abortion, though through logical deduction, several parts of it do).

Which parts? There's even a ritual (which, unsurprisingly, is unlikely to be effective) to perform an abortion in the case of infidelity.

The core belief behind why abortion is wrong is that it is not your body.

Ooh, now apply that to yourself in regards to the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant!

A fetus is a fully self-contained human person

Then why on earth is it using someone else's body?

Your rights end where the baby's rights as a human being begin.

According to WA resolutions fetuses are not babies/children.

(because that's what sex is for).

If that were true, humans would have an annual heat for the optimum breeding season, like most animals. The reason why we, as a RL human species, have women with concealed ovulation and both sexes with incessant sexual appetites is because sex for us is - like it is for bonobos - primarily a way to keep couples together and enjoying each other's company.

If you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have made one. It's that simple.

And if you tried your damnedest best to not make one (like, you know, using birth contol that generally works very well?) would that still apply?

To quote the draft,
"Objections based on race, gender, enmity towards the individual, criminal history, or religion are not considered to be legitimate, and will not be accepted. The objection must be towards the morality of the practice in itself, not towards the person.

OOC: ...so if objections based on religion aren't legitimate, doesn't that mean that the doctor can't use their religion as an excuse?

Well, now that I think about it, most people that share my beliefs probably would not become a doctor

OOC: I should hope so.

OOC: Last I checked, jobs and professions are essentially the same thing.

OOC: My profession is lab technician. If I work as a waiter in a restaurant, how does that make my job equal my profession?

It has to refer specifically to the procedure in question and its morality. It can't be based off of the fact that they don't like Mondays or something like that.

So, without being able to read the person's thoughts, how are you going to be certain that it's based on morality and not on them being lazy?

According to my resolution, the doctor may opt not to perform it as long as a willing substitute can be found in a timely manner

What does the "except in cases defined by international law" exception mean in that context?

meaning based on the predicted amount of time before certain problems begin to get worse to a point of not being able to reverse them.

And if things take a turn for the worse before the predicted amount of time, does that mean the doctor can be held legally responsible for any resulting complications? Also, that's not what your proposal says. It just says "in a timely manner".

Looking at the list, I'm not sure, actually.

That's because it doesn't fit properly in any. It's pretty much anti-Healthcare, but there's no such category.

such as human rights maybe

Taking rights away from one group of people to give another group of people more rights doesn't exactly increase civil freedoms.

furtherment of democracy

Not applicable, it doesn't affect political freedoms.

though probably somewhere in healthcare

Considering that you'd be restricting access to medical procedures, I'm not sure that'd apply. Bioethics seems to restrict healthcare people's/researchers' rights to do what they please, so I don't see that working out either.

They should find people willing to do the procedure; they shouldn't coerce anyone.

OOC: The proposal allows just that to happen.

Furthermore, I don't believe physicians should be deprived of the freedom to choose when and where they work.

Ever heard of office hours?

I disagree. The best solution for the state would be to raise pay until somebody agrees to perform the procedure.

The proposal disagrees your disagreement.

and it should also be obvious why physicians should have the freedom to choose what procedures they offer.

Why? If they're a general practitioner, why should they be allowed to choose to not measure someone's blood pressure, forcing the person to go find another doctor for that one single procedure?

Certainly, such punishment would be a violation of the physician's supposed right to decide how he uses -- and what happens to -- his own body.

Again, the proposal disagrees with you, and in the case of a doctor performing a procedure, they're the active side of that, doing something to another person, not having something done on them.

Because reducing the number of physicians willing to provide care for their patients will totally improve medical care

Hence this not fitting in Healthcare category.

OOC: Also, this is a thread about the proposal being drafted, not abortion.

OOC: Oh c'mon, we all know this is really about abortion. Otherwise it wouldn't have Auralia's heavy involvement and originate from the Catholic region.

[Kenmoria]

"Also, clause 5 seems like a necessary condition from clause 4, and might work better as a sub-clause."

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

Not sure how it's an arrogant claim. So far the only anti-choice advocates I've seen have been the products of diploma mills or without even fake credentials, and the medical science is quite settled: 'Child' is not synonymous with 'foetus'.
I'm sure there are some arm-chair anti-choice philosophers out there. They would gain a lot from attending accredited universities.

((OOC: ... seriously? You really believe there are no contemporary pro-life philosophers with a degree from an accredited university?))

Going through their Wikipedia pages, I don't see where they made the same mistake you did, and claimed that abortion is a "practice of killing children in the womb". I don't see any instance where they claim that a child is inhuman, so they're not the source of CD's mistake either. If I missed an instance of either, please do correct me.

I'm a member of an Academic Council at my university. We're responsible for awarding academic titles and assessing academic credentials from applicants. While Philosophy and Medicine are different faculties, we do have a Political Theory Department at my faculty. If a PhD thesis landed on my desk where I could spot elementary mistakes like your's and CD's, I would find that to be reason enough to raise objections.

So where's the difference in terms of categorisation between these two proposals, if you'll be so kind?

((OOC: There is no area of effect in the Health category that corresponds to conscience rights for healthcare practitioners. This proposal does not promote access to healthcare (Healthcare) or provide international aid (International Aid) or promote medical research (Research) or place ethical restrictions on such research (Bioethics).))

I would think reducing access to healthcare based on arbitrary whims of the doctor involved would be a new standard of healthcare, specifically a new low. Having to pay personnel for not doing their jobs, and having to hire further personnel to fulfill medical obligations, would increase the costs of healthcare, requiring states to increase healthcare budgets.

(OOC: Attempted Socialism, there are both pro-life and pro-choice people with medical credentials. Also, this is a thread about the proposal being drafted, not abortion.)

Sure, it's just that anti-choice people aren't using their medical credentials to inform their opinion on some medical questions, and when examinated, they use their learnt medical skills, rather than their indoctrinated fantasies, to respond to questions if they wish to pass exams.
Also bollocks to your comment. This draft would increase areas in which doctors can use non-medical reasoning (In this case, specifically instiutionalised belief in a book of myths and faerie-tales.) to avoid doing their jobs; discussing the merits of that is relevant to the draft. Abortion is specifically mentioned in the draft, and my critique of the intentions of the draft holds true for the other mentioned procedures.


Edit: Darn quote tags.
Edit2: Responded to Kenmoria.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: could the author or someone else give an example of a procedure to which a medical practitioner might object on moral grounds, other than abortion? Abortion is covered by GAR #128, which gives the putative provider an absolute right to refuse to perform one, without any regard for the patient, the urgency of the situation, or literally any other consideration or factor. If abortion is all you've got here, then this is both duplication and contradiction.

(Also, given that state of affairs, abortion is completely beside the point in this thread and if you want to talk about it, General is <------------ thataway.)



[/notamod]

[Auralia]

Going through their Wikipedia pages, I don't see where they made the same mistake you did, and claimed that abortion is a "practice of killing children in the womb". I don't see any instance where they claim that a child is inhuman, so they're not the source of CD's mistake either. If I missed an instance of either, please do correct me.

((OOC: I'm not sure why you think you'll be able to understand their arguments against abortion by simply reading their Wikipedia pages instead of their actual writings. It is readily apparent to anyone who does the slightest bit of research that one of the primary reasons most pro-life philosophers oppose abortion is that it constitutes the killing of an innocent human being prior to birth, which one might indeed describe colloquially as killing children in the womb.

Just to take one example, David Oderberg plainly states in Applied Ethics that "...abortion - that is, the deliberate killing of the foetus in its mother's womb - is wrong, being an instance of the intentional taking of innocent human life. Strictly, [the term] 'unborn child' is perfectly accurate..."))

I'm a member of an Academic Council at my university. We're responsible for awarding academic titles and assessing academic credentials from applicants. While Philosophy and Medicine are different faculties, we do have a Political Theory Department at my faculty. If a PhD thesis landed on my desk where I could spot elementary mistakes like your's and CD's, I would find that to be reason enough to raise objections.

((OOC: Well, congratulations on being part of the problem! I am fortunate not to attend your university, where obedience to pro-abortion orthodoxy is apparently required to graduate.))

Having to pay personnel for not doing their jobs, and having to hire further personnel to fulfill medical obligations, would increase the costs of healthcare, requiring states to increase healthcare budgets.

((OOC: This is a limited secondary effect of respecting the conscience rights of health care practitioners. Categories should reflect the primary purpose and effect of a proposal.))

[Auralia]

OOC: could the author or someone else give an example of a procedure to which a medical practitioner might object on moral grounds, other than abortion?

((OOC: A few common examples:

• Capital punishment, via means such as lethal injection.
• Active euthanasia.
• Passive euthanasia, via means such as refusal to provide nutrition and hydration while providing other care.
• Prescribing or dispensing drugs to facilitate assisted suicide.
• Prescribing or dispensing artificial contraceptives.

))

[Christian Democrats]

I have worked with and been romantically involved with enough medical students to know they have both ethics in medicine and philosophy of science courses during their first years here, as well as a first-year test made to weed out the patently unqualified. Someone doing the very basic mistake that you did at an exam would seriously have a hard time passing.

First, I did not realize that dating medical students makes a person an expert on medical ethics -- a branch of philosophy.

Second, a medical student at your university would be failed if he considered the unborn human to be a child, really?

The Most Holy and Grand Empire has abolished capital punishment, Ambassador.

Also, your argument is unclear. Are you saying that physicians should be forced to perform all procedures that they are capable of performing even if they do not want to perform them, and what counts as a "standard medical procedure"?

We are glad to hear your stance on capital punishment, Ambassador.

Executions neither involve the consent of the 'patient'/victim nor are they conducive to health and well-being. Since they fail even this simple minimal yet not exhaustive test (a standard we can imagine you can broadly agree to) they can not reasonably classified as medical procedures in our eyes but at best procedures under medical supervision. Therefore we took your initial question as unproductive hyperbole and answered in kind.

Please allow us to answer your broadly overgeneralized question with a very specific example: Should a talented doctor that objects to blood transfusions be employed as an emergency room doctor or trauma surgeon? Should they be excempt from all legal liabilities that might arise from complications that arise based on their objection to blood transfusions?
Since moral convictions can change, should a doctor employed as an ER doctor or trauma surgeon that begins to voice strong objections towards blood transfusions and refuses to partake in any case involving them be kept in employment in this position? Or should they be fired and replaced by another doctor that does not jeopardize the health of their patients?
Please be reminded that 'blood transfusions' can be replaced by an innumerable amount of possible medical procedures. ER doctor and trauma surgeon would then be replaced with a specific job position that, according to best medical practices, is equipped and should be required to perform said specific medical practice.

No part of this constitutes forcing a doctor to perform a specific procedure. We merely insist that a patient's health and life take priority over objections to general medical best practices by doctors or institution. There is an inherent imbalance of power between doctors and patients. Patients have to be able to rely on their doctors administering the best possible care or be referred to a suitable medical professional in cases where the doctor cannot be reasonably expected to be equipped or trained for said care.

We ask again: What part of this reasoning is comparable to advocacy of slavery?

Requiring a private citizen to perform labor for another private citizen when he considers that labor to be immoral is slavery. Barring life-or-death situations, it cannot be justified. I cannot think of any examples of common occupations where people are required to violate their consciences as a condition of their employment. Physicians should be entitled to protection of their rights, the same as anybody else.

So far the only anti-choice advocates I've seen have been the products of diploma mills or without even fake credentials

[ . . . ]

I'm sure there are some arm-chair anti-choice philosophers out there. They would gain a lot from attending accredited universities.

Thanks for the ad hominem, not to mention the factual inaccuracy of your claim.

the medical science is quite settled: 'Child' is not synonymous with 'foetus'.

This isn't a scientific question. Also, the dictionary disagrees.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

I'm a member of an Academic Council at my university.

And, by your own admission, you've been "romantically involved" with students?!

We're responsible for awarding academic titles and assessing academic credentials from applicants. While Philosophy and Medicine are different faculties, we do have a Political Theory Department at my faculty. If a PhD thesis landed on my desk where I could spot elementary mistakes like your's and CD's, I would find that to be reason enough to raise objections.

So if Robert P. George, for example, applied for a faculty position in political theory, you'd deny it to him based on his pro-life views?

Assuming they don't quit out of frustration, it's no wonder that most conservative academics stay closeted until they're tenured.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/23/conservative-professors-live-a-closeted-life-heres-why/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/opinion/conservative-professors.html

[New-Brussels]

[

I'm a member of an Academic Council at my university.

And, by your own admission, you've been "romantically involved" with students?!

Might have been when he was himself a student, or maybe he refers to students of academic bodies entirely different to his own ?

Geez

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Requiring a private citizen to perform labor for another private citizen when he considers that labor to be immoral is slavery. Barring life-or-death situations, it cannot be justified. I cannot think of any examples of common occupations where people are required to violate their consciences as a condition of their employment.

OOC: Police officer comes immediately to mind. Officers who speak up about police misconduct, or who in especially corrupted departments show repeated reluctance to violate arrestees' civil rights, most often find themselves drummed out of the force. That seems to favor your side of the argument, fwiw.

[Kenmoria]

"Given the numerous restrictions imposed upon this morality based exception, Kenmoria is FOR this proposal."