[SUBMITTED] Medical Provider Conscience Act

[Araraukar]

OOC: Hello there. I hope you did not take much offense.

OOC: Eh, I've had a longer time getting used to running into ignorant people online than Tinfect has. And also I have a larger vocabulary of foul words than just "fuck". Tinfect, you know you're a luvly gal, but you also know what I mean...

It is not a required function of every gynecologist to perform abortions.

In RL USA. But it's not what I asked. I asked why wouldn't you want a doctor to do their job, if they've been hired to do their job? When the gynecologist is hired and their contract says they need to be qualified and able to do all procedures that go under the specialization of gynecology, then if they refused to, say, insert a IUD into the womb of an unmarried woman, they damn well should get fired. Or, in USA, sued. Which usually leads to firing, in my understanding...

While many medical procedures do not need to be performed immediately.

That's not the point, though. We're not talking about delaying. You're wanting the doctors to be able to refuse based on what they feel like. If ethics or religious reasons were used as an excuse, I think there should be some proof presented, to make sure they're not just avoiding the procedure because of laziness or because they think bloody mucus is icky (though it is icky), or, in the viciously capitalist systems, because it doesn't earn them enough money.

[Gratissima]

How would forcing physicians to perform operations to which they're morally opposed increase the quality of medical services?

OOC: Because the state is required to provide said care (at least if staying in NSWA world) at high enough quality regardless, so they'd have to find qualified people actually willing to do their job.

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.

How would forcing certain individuals out of the medical profession due to their moral beliefs increase the quality of medical services?

How would requiring said individuals to do their damn jobs regardless of their moral beliefs be bad? If they were hired to do the job of a doctor, they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose when they want to do it and when not.

That's bordering on discrimination, isn't it? Forcing someone out of a job or preventing them from getting a job because of their moral beliefs. I do believe that 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."

Should a member state or a hospital, in your view, have the power to force physicians to perform lethal injections on criminals?

If death penalty is allowed and the injection needs to be given by a doctor, then naturally, if there are no willing volunteers. Like with certain aspects of healthcare, the state just has to get it done, simple as that.

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.

OOC: Eighty-six percent of obstetricians and gynecologists do not perform abortions.

Annnnd that has anything to do with anything anyway? Also, from what I can see, that thing you linked is about healthcare in USA?

That does have plenty to do with anything. It shows that abortion is not really as essential of a function of gynecology as everyone seems to keep insisting it is.

I ask you: why the hell would you become an actor if you weren't willing to do pornos?

...to flip that back to healthcare you'd be asking why a general practitioner wouldn't do dental work? I hope the answer's obvious.

...to quote what you said, "why would a doctor become a doctor if they don't want to do their job?" You seem to imply by saying that that it is required for every doctor to be able to perform an abortion.

So people who believe their patients are inhuman are more qualified to provide medical care?

At least as qualified as people who think that a thousands of years old book knows better than modern medicine just who should or should not be allowed to decide what happens to their own bodies...

You seem to think that our only source of information for anything is the Bible. We have more evidence beyond the Bible (in fact, the Bible does not say anything specifically forbidding abortion, though through logical deduction, several parts of it do). The core belief behind why abortion is wrong is that it is not your body. A fetus is a fully self-contained human person, with a right to its own body. Your rights end where the baby's rights as a human being begin. You have a right to keep people out of your body, including the right to stop a man from inserting his you-know-what into you and creating a baby (because that's what sex is for). If you didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have made one. It's that simple.

[Gratissima]

OOC: Hello there. I hope you did not take much offense.

OOC: Eh, I've had a longer time getting used to running into ignorant people online than Tinfect has. And also I have a larger vocabulary of foul words than just "fuck". Tinfect, you know you're a luvly gal, but you also know what I mean...

It is not a required function of every gynecologist to perform abortions.

In RL USA. But it's not what I asked. I asked why wouldn't you want a doctor to do their job, if they've been hired to do their job? When the gynecologist is hired and their contract says they need to be qualified and able to do all procedures that go under the specialization of gynecology, then if they refused to, say, insert a IUD into the womb of an unmarried woman, they damn well should get fired. Or, in USA, sued. Which usually leads to firing, in my understanding...

It is not the primary job of a gynecologist to perform abortions. Often there are gynecologists who specifically specialize in abortions, thus reducing the need for others to have to do so.

While many medical procedures do not need to be performed immediately.

That's not the point, though. We're not talking about delaying. You're wanting the doctors to be able to refuse based on what they feel like. If ethics or religious reasons were used as an excuse, I think there should be some proof presented, to make sure they're not just avoiding the procedure because of laziness or because they think bloody mucus is icky (though it is icky), or, in the viciously capitalist systems, because it doesn't earn them enough money.

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.

a. Objections to lifesaving procedures will not be accepted unless there are alternative forms of treatment that the provider does not object to using and the patient does not object to receiving.
b. The objection must not in any way object to the gender, race, or personality of the patient."

[Gratissima]

Does anyone have any final opinions to share, anything they'd like to be fixed, noticed anything specifically illegal?

[Burninati0n]

Just a little confused...

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. 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.

This proposal asserts that there is a "controversy" regarding the morality of gender reassignment procedures, but fails to protect someone who refuses to provide gender reassignment from civil action for their refusal. Seems a little weird.

Also, I should note that there is controversy regarding the subject, namely, how to protect patients from institutions which, because of their backwards moral beliefs, refuse to provide adequate healthcare to patients. This resolution does absolutely nothing to protect patients from inadequate care, so its name (having to do with "conscience") seems misplaced to me.

Refusal to provide care for gender reassignment either in the short term (surgeries) or long term (hormones or other long term healthcare that transgendered people need) amounts to discrimination in service based on gender, and as such, any institution that engages in it is in violation of the CoCR. In other words, gender reassignment is something that requires long-term medical assistance, and the refusal to provide such assistance amounts in practice to the refusal to provide healthcare to transgender people, which is clearly illegal under the CoCR. I would argue, therefore, that giving medical institutions the right to discriminate, this proposal contradicts the CoCR.

[Gratissima]

Just a little confused...

RECOGNIZING some of aforementioned procedures are a matter of controversy regarding their morality (e.g. abortion, gender reassignment, vasectomy, etc.),

3. Also protects such personnel and facilities from any legal action taken against them for refusing to partake in a medical procedure, provided their reason is legitimate. 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.

This resolution asserts that there is a "controversy" regarding the morality of gender reassignment procedures, but fails to protect someone who refuses to provide gender reassignment from civil action for their refusal. Seems a little weird.

OOC: Good point. Thanks for catching that.

Also, I should note that there is controversy regarding the subject, namely, how to protect patients from institutions which, because of their backwards moral beliefs, refuse to provide adequate healthcare to patients. This resolution does absolutely nothing to protect patients from inadequate care, so its name (having to do with "conscience") seems misplaced to me.

If they want a certain procedure, they should go somewhere that offers it. The resolution requires that if a government has no facilities with that procedure available, they must establish one.

Refusal to provide care for gender reassignment either in the short term (surgeries) or long term (hormones or other long term healthcare that transgendered people need) amounts to discrimination in service based on gender, and as such, any institution that engages in it is in violation of the CoCR.

Well, now that I think about it, most people that share my beliefs probably would not become a doctor of that sort anyway, so I don't think that will be a problem.

[Burninati0n]

If they want a certain procedure, they should go somewhere that offers it. The resolution requires that if a government has no facilities with that procedure available, they must establish one.

Well, now that I think about it, most people that share my beliefs probably would not become a doctor of that sort anyway, so I don't think that will be a problem.

I am uncertain what you mean by this.

Transgender people obtain continuing healthcare from their primary healthcare provider; this is not related to being a doctor of a certain "sort."

Offering an institution the right not to provide care for gender reassignment amounts to offering them the right to provide healthcare to everyone but transgendered people, which is a clear instance of discrimination of the kind that is illegal under the CoCR.

This proposal:
"Healthcare providers can refuse to provide medical care related to gender reassignment."
Fact:
If you're transgender, you need medical care related to your gender reassignment. Thus this proposal is, in practice, indistinguishable from "healthcare providers can refuse to provide medical care to transgender people."
CoCR:
"You can't discriminate based on gender."

That's a clear contradiction, and if this proposal, as written, comes up for vote, I do intend to challenge it on these grounds. (Offering an institution a right that is practically identical to the right to discriminate based on gender contradicts CoCR.)

[Gratissima]

If they want a certain procedure, they should go somewhere that offers it. The resolution requires that if a government has no facilities with that procedure available, they must establish one.

Well, now that I think about it, most people that share my beliefs probably would not become a doctor of that sort anyway, so I don't think that will be a problem.

I am uncertain what you mean by this.

Transgender people obtain continuing healthcare from their primary healthcare provider; this is not related to being a doctor of a certain "sort."

Offering an institution the right not to provide care for gender reassignment amounts to offering them the right not to provide healthcare to everyone but transgendered people, which is a clear instance of discrimination of the kind that is illegal under the CoCR.

This proposal:
"Healthcare providers can refuse to provide medical care related to gender reassignment."
Fact:
If you're transgender, you need medical care related to your gender reassignment. Thus this proposal is, in practice, indistinguishable from "healthcare providers can refuse to provide medical care to transgender people."
CoCR:
"You can't discriminate based on gender."

That's a clear contradiction, and if this proposal, as written, comes up for vote, I do intend to challenge it on these grounds. (Offering an institution a right that is practically identical to the right to discriminate based on gender contradicts CoCR.)

OOC: Nowhere in this proposal do I say that someone can refuse to treat someone on the basis of their gender. By the way, I've removed the gender reassignment thing, because yes, most of the time a specialist is seen for care regarding gender reassignment. Most doctors are not trained in it to begin with.

[Burninati0n]

OOC: Nowhere in this proposal do I say that someone can refuse to treat someone on the basis of their gender. By the way, I've removed the gender reassignment thing, because yes, most of the time a specialist is seen for care regarding gender reassignment. Most doctors are not trained in it to begin with.

So what? If primary healthcare providers are allowed to refuse to provide care related to gender reassignment, that is functionally equivalent to being allowed to refuse to provide care based on a person's gender. The fact that you didn't use those specific words doesn't change the fact that that's what it amounts to.

And why stop at providers? If providers are allowed to refuse to provide medical care related to gender reassignment, insurance companies should be allowed to provide health insurance to everyone except transgendered people as well. Don't see why doctors and nurses specifically would be the only people given the right to discriminate here.

[Gratissima]

OOC: Nowhere in this proposal do I say that someone can refuse to treat someone on the basis of their gender. By the way, I've removed the gender reassignment thing, because yes, most of the time a specialist is seen for care regarding gender reassignment. Most doctors are not trained in it to begin with.

So what? If primary healthcare providers are allowed to refuse to provide care related to gender reassignment, that is functionally equivalent to being allowed to refuse to provide care based on a person's gender. The fact that you didn't use those specific words doesn't change the fact that that's what it amounts to.

OOC: No it is not. As defined by Wikipedia, "Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

[Burninati0n]

OOC: No it is not. As defined by Wikipedia, "Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

Let me try this one more time.

Fact 1: If you're transgendered, you need continuing, long term medical care related to your gender reassignment.
Fact 2: This proposal seeks to grant healthcare providers the ability to refuse to provide medical care related to gender reassignment.
==
Conclusion 1 (Fact 1 + Fact 2) => This proposal seeks to grant healthcare providers the ability to refuse care to transgendered people.

This is a clear violation of the below clauses of the CoCR:

Article 1.

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,

Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

Just because the proposal doesn't say "healthcare providers can discriminate based on gender" doesn't mean that's not what it does.

[Gratissima]

OOC: No it is not. As defined by Wikipedia, "Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

Let me try this one more time.

Fact 1: If you're transgendered, you need continuing, long term medical care related to your gender reassignment.
Fact 2: This proposal seeks to grant healthcare providers the ability to refuse to provide medical care related to gender reassignment.
==
Conclusion 1 (Fact 1 + Fact 2) => This proposal seeks to grant healthcare providers the ability to refuse care to transgendered people.

This is a clear violation of the below clauses of the CoCR:

Article 1.

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,

Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

Just because the proposal doesn't say "healthcare providers can discriminate based on gender" doesn't mean that's not what it does.

OOC: Just because they won't give care related to gender reassignment doesn't mean they won't give care to them at all. According to my moral beliefs (which are pretty similar in this regard to most others on my side), a doctor cannot perform a gender reassignment operation, but he must provide the most essential care to a transgendered person, because regardless of what decisions they make, they are a person. In theory, nothing is wrong with providing certain medications to a person who has undergone a gender reassignment operation, because some of those medications will ensure that their overall health is maintained.

[Burninati0n]

OOC: Just because they won't give care related to gender reassignment doesn't mean they won't give care to them at all. According to my moral beliefs (which are pretty similar in this regard to most others on my side), a doctor cannot perform a gender reassignment operation, but he must provide other care to a transgendered person, because regardless of what decisions they make, they are a person.

The CoCR requires that WA member states provide citizens with equal access to services. Medical care is a service. Partially providing medical care to transgender people while fully providing medical care to everyone else constitutes unequal treatment based on a class protected in the CoCR as I quoted.

Also, your proposal does not act in the way that you say it does. It says:

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

This clearly indicates that a healthcare provider can refuse to provide long term and necessary hormone treatment to transgender people, which effectively means that transgender people will need to go seek necessary healthcare elsewhere. As worded, this does not apply only to specific procedures.

I should also note that as worded, the proposal seems to specifically give doctors the right to break what is a commonly accepted principle in the medical community: "do no harm." (Refusal to suggest abortion as an option to a woman whose life is in danger as a result of her pregnancy constitutes a harm, and should the woman die without ever learning about that potential option, this proposal would actually protect the negligent doctor from civil penalty as long as the doctor argued that his decision not to "promote" potentially life-saving care was based on religious beliefs about the procedure.)

[Gratissima]

OOC: Just because they won't give care related to gender reassignment doesn't mean they won't give care to them at all. According to my moral beliefs (which are pretty similar in this regard to most others on my side), a doctor cannot perform a gender reassignment operation, but he must provide other care to a transgendered person, because regardless of what decisions they make, they are a person.

The CoCR requires that WA member states provide citizens with equal access to services. Medical care is a service. Partially providing medical care to transgender people while fully providing medical care to everyone else constitutes unequal treatment based on a class protected in the CoCR as I quoted.

OOC: It is not partially providing medical care, everyone gets the same care. And by the way, if you read it, it says the member states, not the individual healthcare providers. I don't go looking for dental care from a psychiatrist. Thus, someone who needs treatment for gender care should not ask a provider unequipped to provide them with that care to provide them with it.

Also, your proposal does not act in the way that you say it does. It says:

2. Protects medical facilities that are privately run (e.g. by a religious institution) and medical personnel that are currently employed by public health facilities from being forced to perform or otherwise promote practices that are contrary to the moral principles either of the individual personnel member in question, person or persons that own/run the establishment or the institution that owns/runs the establishment.

This clearly indicates that a healthcare provider can refuse to provide long term and necessary hormone treatment to transgender people, which effectively means that transgender people will need to go seek necessary healthcare elsewhere. As worded, this does not apply only to specific procedures.

I don't go looking for dental care from a psychiatrist. Thus, someone who needs treatment for gender care should not ask a provider unequipped to provide them with that care to provide them with it.

I should also note that as worded, the proposal seems to specifically give doctors the right to break what is a commonly accepted principle in the medical community: "do no harm." (Refusal to suggest abortion as an option to a woman whose life is in danger as a result of her pregnancy constitutes a harm, and should the woman die without ever learning about that potential option, this proposal would actually protect the negligent doctor from civil penalty as long as the doctor argued that his decision not to "promote" potentially life-saving care was based on religious beliefs about the procedure.)

Just to let you know, based on my moral beliefs (which again, in this regard are pretty similar to most others on this side of the argument) state that a lifesaving procedure, which as an unfortunate side effect ends the life of the baby, is morally acceptable, the reason being that both the mother and the child have the right to live, and either way, someone will have to die. That is not defined as an abortion. An abortion is specifically intended to terminate the pregnancy, nothing else.

[Arotania]

If at all it is their own moral conviction that forces them to not take a job that entails actions they object to. Noone is forced by the state. Especially not out. They try to take a job they are not willing to perform in the first place. Giving the job to someone who is actually willing to do it therefore increases quality of medical services. The explanation how any of this equates to slavery is still absent from your reply.

Performing executions is a standard medical procedure in your country? We will make sure to issue a travel warning for Christian Democrats to our populace.

OOC: As we have repeated time and time again, abortion is not a practice all doctors are expected to perform, and not all gynecologists either. Approximately 86% of gynecologists do not perform abortions, as stated by NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... an-thought

OOC: What does this have to do with the general reasoning? Also what portion of those work at instituions and places that are equipped and can be reasonably expected to perform abortions? Again, we are talking jobs, not professions.

What does promote mean in this context? Does this include withholding information from their patients?

Promote means encouragement of a certain procedure. For example, a doctor who objects to abortion will not be forced to encourage abortion as a option.

The only time a doctor should encourage, as opposed to merely objectively mention, abortion as an option is in cases where it is medically sensible to prevent greater harm to the pregnant women. So would a doctor be allowed to withhold information about the medically advised procedure if they object to it?

How would legitimacy be determined? How would legitimacy be defined in this context? Are there any minimum standards an objection would have to confirm to?

I guess there is not a foolproof system of determining the legitimacy, but there's not a lot that can be done about it. The standards: the objection cannot in the slightest way allude to the race, gender, or personality of the person.
I will add that.

But is there any system at all? Would a doctor scribbling on a piece of paper 'I don't like Mondays therefore I find procedure X deeply immoral and I won't perform procedure X' count? If not, how is this reasoned on basis of this proposition? Where is the minium? Also how could a religious instituion running a hospital have any nonreligious objections of its own?

What does lifesaving procedures mean? Inherently lifesaving? Imminently lifesaving? Potentially lifesaving? Would doctors be allowed to drag their feet waiting for a situation to reach a level of lifethreatening they are comfortable with, meanwhile letting the health of their patient detoriate and further complications arise? What about cases where refusal to perform a certain procedure can lead to permanent and severe yet not lifethreatening health restrictions like necessitated amputations or prolonged coma?

Lifesaving procedures refer to a procedure that must be performed immediately to prevent the loss of life. You make a good point, if a suitable replacement cannot be found in a timely manner, the doctor must perform the procedure. I will also add that.

So preventable amputations, prolonged coma and everything else that is nonlethal are acceptable as results of a doctor's objection according to this proposal? Same for deaths from circumstances that do not appear to be necessarily lethal at a point in time at which performing the procedure that has been objected to would have prevented them. Noted.

Why does this proposal insist on treating medical professionals like imbeciles that can't read a contract and have never heard about things they spent years studying?

It does not treat them as imbeciles. Different hospitals may have different expectations and division of labor for their personnel. They may have certain gynecologists specializing in X procedures while others specialize in Y. It ensures that they are fully aware of what services the position they are taking in the facility expects them to do.

And having their contract explained to tham in full as opposed to letting them read and evaluate it themselves is treating them like professionals with full mental capacities? Not really.

What category is this intended for anyways?

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: We could spend years debating the morality of abortion, and by God I'm willing to, but that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to find errors with the draft from a legislative viewpoint. So I'd appreciate if the ideological arguing would stop and some constructive criticism (beyond "This idea is evil, so go away"). If you think what I'm doing is evil, then fine, don't support it. But please, at least stop filling the thread with this argument and make some space for fixing the actual draft. I'm not saying drop the conversation, if you want to continue this, start a thread in General Discussion and yap away. I like to see people from two sides of a controversial issue actually have a civil conversation about something they disagree about like that.
And I do agree with your last point, and I'm saying this to both sides of this argument: look up the words you want to use before you use them to make sure you actually know what they mean.

OOC: Debating the merits of a draft, or in this case, the utter lack thereof, is pretty important insofar that people may be swayed by arguments presented in a draft thread. Your draft cannot be fixed, as what you want to allow is antithetical to ethical behaviour, and pointing that out is not a subject for a debate in GD.

[Burninati0n]

It is not partially providing medical care, everyone gets the same care.

So if you provide the same care to a cancer patient as a patient with the flu, you're satisfied that everyone has been fairly treated?

I don't go looking for dental care from a psychiatrist. Thus, someone who needs treatment for gender care should not ask a provider unequipped to provide them with that care to provide them with it.

We are here talking about general medical practitioners, or primary care doctors. Such doctors commonly write prescriptions, especially for the kinds of hormones required for long term medical care for people who are transgendered. Your analogy is notably disanalagous; general practitioners are quite well equipped to provide basic medical services related to gender reassignment, but based on the proposal as penned, doctors can refuse to provide this care. This amounts to the right of that doctor to refuse to provide basic medical care to transgendered people, which is discrimination of the kind prohibited by the CoCR. This is super simple.

It's like how general practitioners can treat both the flu and pneumonia. You're basically saying a general practitioner should have the right never to treat the flu, if he so desires, and even give him the right to withhold information from patients about how other general practitioners would treat the flu. AND you're arguing that since he is willing to treat you if you have pneumonia, that you're getting "equal treatment" as the person with pneumonia.

It's patently absurd.

Just to let you know, based on my moral beliefs (which again, in this regard are pretty similar to most others on this side of the argument) state that a lifesaving procedure, which as an unfortunate side effect ends the life of the baby, is morally acceptable, the reason being that both the mother and the child have the right to live, and either way, someone will have to die. That is not defined as an abortion. An abortion is specifically intended to terminate the pregnancy, nothing else.

A bizarre belief, but I don't see how that's related to the proposal as written.

This proposal specifically would give doctors the right to withhold information about abortions in such cases on the basis of the doctor's belief that the procedure is immoral, and it would also protect that doctor from civil suit if his failure to provide that information resulted in the deaths of patients under his care. This would be guaranteed by his right not to "promote" any "practice" he has a moral objection to.

I am not discussing your beliefs except to point out that this proposal offers discriminatory powers to healthcare providers far above and beyond what you are saying you believe in.

[Gratissima]

OOC: As we have repeated time and time again, abortion is not a practice all doctors are expected to perform, and not all gynecologists either. Approximately 86% of gynecologists do not perform abortions, as stated by NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... an-thought

OOC: What does this have to do with the general reasoning? Also what portion of those work at instituions and places that are equipped and can be reasonably expected to perform abortions? Again, we are talking jobs, not professions.

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

Promote means encouragement of a certain procedure. For example, a doctor who objects to abortion will not be forced to encourage abortion as a option.

The only time a doctor should encourage, as opposed to merely objectively mention, abortion as an option is in cases where it is medically sensible to prevent greater harm to the pregnant women. So would a doctor be allowed to withhold information about the medically advised procedure if they object to it?

In most of those cases, as I have said before, it is not by definition an abortion. But in cases where it is, well, for one, they aren't really medically sensible. But I won't get into that now. By my moral beliefs, it is not wrong to tell someone that an abortion is available, because that is not encouraging it, it is merely telling them a true fact. The resolution is protecting them from having to basically send them to get an abortion.

I guess there is not a foolproof system of determining the legitimacy, but there's not a lot that can be done about it. The standards: the objection cannot in the slightest way allude to the race, gender, or personality of the person.
I will add that.

But is there any system at all? Would a doctor scribbling on a piece of paper 'I don't like Mondays therefore I find procedure X deeply immoral and I won't perform procedure X' count? If not, how is this reasoned on basis of this proposition? Where is the minium? Also how could a religious instituion running a hospital have any nonreligious objections of its own?

Yes there is. 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.

Lifesaving procedures refer to a procedure that must be performed immediately to prevent the loss of life. You make a good point, if a suitable replacement cannot be found in a timely manner, the doctor must perform the procedure. I will also add that.

So preventable amputations, prolonged coma and everything else that is nonlethal are acceptable as results of a doctor's objection according to this proposal? Same for deaths from circumstances that do not appear to be necessarily lethal at a point in time at which performing the procedure that has been objected to would have prevented them. Noted.

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, 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.

It does not treat them as imbeciles. Different hospitals may have different expectations and division of labor for their personnel. They may have certain gynecologists specializing in X procedures while others specialize in Y. It ensures that they are fully aware of what services the position they are taking in the facility expects them to do.

And having their contract explained to tham in full as opposed to letting them read and evaluate it themselves is treating them like professionals with full mental capacities? Not really.

By having it explained to them, it makes them fully aware of what the facility specifically expects them to do. If they were to read it themselves, it leaves a possibility for misinterpretation of a specific service the hospital may expect them to perform. This can also generally protect them from being cheated out of their pay or things like that, because in a lawsuit they can call to mind what the facility itself told them that their contract stated.

What category is this intended for anyways?

Looking at the list, I'm not sure, actually. There are a number it could fall into, such as human rights maybe, furtherment of democracy, though probably somewhere in healthcare, probably bioethics, would work best.

[Gratissima]

OOC: We could spend years debating the morality of abortion, and by God I'm willing to, but that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to find errors with the draft from a legislative viewpoint. So I'd appreciate if the ideological arguing would stop and some constructive criticism (beyond "This idea is evil, so go away"). If you think what I'm doing is evil, then fine, don't support it. But please, at least stop filling the thread with this argument and make some space for fixing the actual draft. I'm not saying drop the conversation, if you want to continue this, start a thread in General Discussion and yap away. I like to see people from two sides of a controversial issue actually have a civil conversation about something they disagree about like that.
And I do agree with your last point, and I'm saying this to both sides of this argument: look up the words you want to use before you use them to make sure you actually know what they mean.

OOC: Debating the merits of a draft, or in this case, the utter lack thereof, is pretty important insofar that people may be swayed by arguments presented in a draft thread. Your draft cannot be fixed, as what you want to allow is antithetical to ethical behaviour, and pointing that out is not a subject for a debate in GD.

OOC: Well, if you're opposed to this draft on the basis that you believe that it is promoting evil, then that's fine. But the general point of a draft thread is to improve the draft to the point that it is not illegal and is worded as well as possible so that it may be entered as a proposal. Some of these discussions seem to be completely veering away from the draft itself.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Debating the merits of a draft, or in this case, the utter lack thereof, is pretty important insofar that people may be swayed by arguments presented in a draft thread. Your draft cannot be fixed, as what you want to allow is antithetical to ethical behaviour, and pointing that out is not a subject for a debate in GD.

OOC: Well, if you're opposed to this draft on the basis that you believe that it is promoting evil, then that's fine. But the general point of a draft thread is to improve the draft to the point that it is not illegal and is worded as well as possible so that it may be entered as a proposal. Some of these discussions seem to be completely veering away from the draft itself.

The general point of a draft thread is also to convince participants and readers to vote either for or against a proposal. I've offered constructive criticism before, as I want the intent of the draft - rather than minor errors - to be resolutely voted down, and for that to be clear (Though of course, there's also the tradeoff of putting in effort).

[Gratissima]

It is not partially providing medical care, everyone gets the same care.

So if you provide the same care to a cancer patient as a patient with the flu, you're satisfied that everyone has been fairly treated?

OOC: Again, you seem to misunderstand me. I mean that they get all the care that is medically necessary for them. And now that I think about it, it would not necessarily be morally wrong to provide the hormone medications, if they are actually medically necessary, so most people would not object to that.

I don't go looking for dental care from a psychiatrist. Thus, someone who needs treatment for gender care should not ask a provider unequipped to provide them with that care to provide them with it.

We are here talking about general medical practitioners, or primary care doctors. Such doctors commonly write prescriptions, especially for the kinds of hormones required for long term medical care for people who are transgendered. Your analogy is notably disanalagous; general practitioners are quite well equipped to provide basic medical services related to gender reassignment, but based on the proposal as penned, doctors can refuse to provide this care. This amounts to the right of that doctor to refuse to provide basic medical care to transgendered people, which is discrimination of the kind prohibited by the CoCR. This is super simple.

It's like how general practitioners can treat both the flu and pneumonia. You're basically saying a general practitioner should have the right never to treat the flu, if he so desires, and even give him the right to withhold information from patients about how other general practitioners would treat the flu. AND you're arguing that since he is willing to treat you if you have pneumonia, that you're getting "equal treatment" as the person with pneumonia.

It's patently absurd.

Looking back at this, I think I was misunderstanding you a little bit. I thought you were talking more about the actual gender reassignment process. Like I said above, once the operation has happened, medications needed afterwards are needed for the basic health of the patient, so the general practitioner is required to provide them.

Just to let you know, based on my moral beliefs (which again, in this regard are pretty similar to most others on this side of the argument) state that a lifesaving procedure, which as an unfortunate side effect ends the life of the baby, is morally acceptable, the reason being that both the mother and the child have the right to live, and either way, someone will have to die. That is not defined as an abortion. An abortion is specifically intended to terminate the pregnancy, nothing else.

A bizarre belief, but I don't see how that's related to the proposal as written.

This proposal specifically would give doctors the right to withhold information about abortions in such cases on the basis of the doctor's belief that the procedure is immoral, and it would also protect that doctor from civil suit if his failure to provide that information resulted in the deaths of patients under his care. This would be guaranteed by his right not to "promote" any "practice" he has a moral objection to.

I am not discussing your beliefs except to point out that this proposal offers discriminatory powers to healthcare providers far above and beyond what you are saying you believe in.

Assuming most patients are not imbeciles, they should be able to find an abortionist relatively easily. As I said before, most people of my mindset would not object to telling someone that an abortion is a legal option, because that is merely stating a truth, not supporting it.

[Gratissima]

OOC: Well, if you're opposed to this draft on the basis that you believe that it is promoting evil, then that's fine. But the general point of a draft thread is to improve the draft to the point that it is not illegal and is worded as well as possible so that it may be entered as a proposal. Some of these discussions seem to be completely veering away from the draft itself.

The general point of a draft thread is also to convince participants and readers to vote either for or against a proposal. I've offered constructive criticism before, as I want the intent of the draft - rather than minor errors - to be resolutely voted down, and for that to be clear (Though of course, there's also the tradeoff of putting in effort).

OOC: I guess you make a good point. Though I've given up on persuading you and the others like you on this thread specifically that it is a worthy cause, because I've provided tons of reasons, and you are adamantly opposed to it still. I guess I unwittingly tried to persuade people with my arguing with you though, so if someone wants to see some reasons, they can look back at the posts.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 3b is a bit rendundant given it is already stated in the main body of clause 3. I also would add line breaks between the subclauses."

[Arotania]

OOC: What does this have to do with the general reasoning? Also what portion of those work at instituions and places that are equipped and can be reasonably expected to perform abortions? Again, we are talking jobs, not professions.

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

OOC: Job as in job position as opposed to a learned profession. Really no reason to to go further offtopic.

The only time a doctor should encourage, as opposed to merely objectively mention, abortion as an option is in cases where it is medically sensible to prevent greater harm to the pregnant women. So would a doctor be allowed to withhold information about the medically advised procedure if they object to it?

In most of those cases, as I have said before, it is not by definition an abortion. But in cases where it is, well, for one, they aren't really medically sensible. But I won't get into that now. By my moral beliefs, it is not wrong to tell someone that an abortion is available, because that is not encouraging it, it is merely telling them a true fact. The resolution is protecting them from having to basically send them to get an abortion.

Your interpretation of cherrypicked definitions is irrelevant. You declaring that abortions are never really medically sensible is a lie. Your personal beliefs are also irrelevant for the interpretation of the proposal at hand.
So according to your last sentence this proposal allows doctors to omit medically relevant information in discussion with patients.

But is there any system at all? Would a doctor scribbling on a piece of paper 'I don't like Mondays therefore I find procedure X deeply immoral and I won't perform procedure X' count? If not, how is this reasoned on basis of this proposition? Where is the minium? Also how could a religious instituion running a hospital have any nonreligious objections of its own?

Yes there is. 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 they are as lax or as strict as the member states care to implement them? Not very reassuring. This leaves the door open wide for abuse. To repeat a question that went unanswered: Also how could a religious instituion running a hospital have any nonreligious objections of its own?

So preventable amputations, prolonged coma and everything else that is nonlethal are acceptable as results of a doctor's objection according to this proposal? Same for deaths from circumstances that do not appear to be necessarily lethal at a point in time at which performing the procedure that has been objected to would have prevented them. Noted.

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, 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.

Medicine is not magic. Cases where chances of death can be accurately predetermined are very rare. Not all possible causes of complications are apparent immediately. Time counts, stalling leads to more complications and death.
We also take your lack of response to severe nonlethal repercussions as that you acknowledge them and are fine with them as a price for whatever may be the upside of this proposal.

And having their contract explained to tham in full as opposed to letting them read and evaluate it themselves is treating them like professionals with full mental capacities? Not really.

By having it explained to them, it makes them fully aware of what the facility specifically expects them to do. If they were to read it themselves, it leaves a possibility for misinterpretation of a specific service the hospital may expect them to perform. This can also generally protect them from being cheated out of their pay or things like that, because in a lawsuit they can call to mind what the facility itself told them that their contract stated.

Handholding the poor doctors because they could fail to ask for specifics about topics that are very important to them. Understood.

[The New Nordic Union]

That's bordering on discrimination, isn't it? Forcing someone out of a job or preventing them from getting a job because of their moral beliefs.

I cannot very well become a cook in a steakhouse and then claim it is against my morals to cook meat and expect not to get fired, just because I can still fry the potato chips.