[DEFEATED] Conscientious objection to abortion

[Separatist Peoples]

"The new language is unsatisfactory, but less so than what it replaces. My office will not support this. If a physician goes into a particular line of work, they have no right to walk away from it because they find practicing medicine revolting."

"Ambassador, I find this line of reasoning mildly concerning, and think it would be beneficial for the drafting process to elaborate, if you are willing.

"While patient wishes are highly relevant, a doctor is as much a counselor of health and treatment as a hired scalpel, and with that necessarily comes some limited freedom of conscience. Just like an attorney has a right to refuse representation or to, within reason, withdraw from a case when personal ethical conflicts arise, so too do doctors and nurses have some discretion regarding personal ethics. I think we can both agree that that discretion should never be particularly broad.

"Should a physician be bound to accept any patient that enters her practice?"

[Wallenburg]

"The new language is unsatisfactory, but less so than what it replaces. My office will not support this. If a physician goes into a particular line of work, they have no right to walk away from it because they find practicing medicine revolting."

"Ambassador, I find this line of reasoning mildly concerning, and think it would be beneficial for the drafting process to elaborate, if you are willing.

"While patient wishes are highly relevant, a doctor is as much a counselor of health and treatment as a hired scalpel, and with that necessarily comes some limited freedom of conscience. Just like an attorney has a right to refuse representation or to, within reason, withdraw from a case when personal ethical conflicts arise, so too do doctors and nurses have some discretion regarding personal ethics. I think we can both agree that that discretion should never be particularly broad.

"Should a physician be bound to accept any patient that enters her practice?"

"If they are equipped and trained to provide the care the patient needs, then yes, I rather think they should be bound to accept any patient. I am sure you agree that physicians should be prohibited from discriminating against patients based on reductive characteristics. I would hope you so agree when it's discrimination against patients with preexisting conditions. Someone suffering from diabetes or alcoholism or dysphoria has every bit as much of a right to receive treatment as someone who isn't. It seems to me that allowing physicians to refuse to treat patients who conduct themselves in a reasonable manner is just a door to all sorts of nightmare scenarios."

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I would add an exception to this legislation where a doctor is still required to perform the procedure if it is a life threatening medical emergency.

[Tsaivao]

I would add an exception to this legislation where a doctor is still required to perform the procedure if it is a life threatening medical emergency.

"This is already present in the first line of legislature"

1. No health care provider in any member nation who expresses a bona fide conscientious or religious objection to abortion may be required to perform or assist in any abortion, provided that such objection is communicated publicly in advance and that such objection does not impose a substantial burden on access of necessary treatment to preserve life or prevent severe permanent injury.

"As for previous arguments mentioned, I believe that, for the most part, there aren't any objective qualms with the resolution that the ambassador has provided; however, I do wish to stress that the very ethics of refusing to serve a particular medical procedure simply because of personal conflicts is itself an ethical dilemma, and as such I exercise my subjective judgement and do not support this legislation-- at least beyond a level of congratulation for the authorship of the resolution." --Manhu Sentai Laogai

[Separatist Peoples]

"If they are equipped and trained to provide the care the patient needs, then yes, I rather think they should be bound to accept any patient.

"I believe that all physicians are trained sufficiently to engage in a wide variety of practice, yet tend to specialize extremely narrowly. Under the rule as proposed, an orthopedic specialist who deals exclusively with knees and shoulders wouldn't be allowed to refuse a claimant with a GI issue despite having the medical licensure and minimal training to address it. This seems particularly inefficient and reductive to processional licenceholders. After all, lawyers need not take criminal claims that appear before them if they specialize in tax law."

I am sure you agree that physicians should be prohibited from discriminating against patients based on reductive characteristics. I would hope you so agree when it's discrimination against patients with preexisting conditions. Someone suffering from diabetes or alcoholism or dysphoria has every bit as much of a right to receive treatment as someone who isn't.

"I do agree broadly that invidious discrimination is intolerable, but I do not think that the underlying premise here is invidous or that the balance of equities supports taking such an aggressive redress, especially given the provisions of Access to Abortion. I agree there is a moral failing for a doctor who holds herself out as a reproductive practitioner to refuse to procure an abortion, but if the solution is something as minor as having a different provider step in, it hardly seems worth compelling a doctor's labor."

It seems to me that allowing physicians to refuse to treat patients who conduct themselves in a reasonable manner is just a door to all sorts of nightmare scenarios."

"But would not my proposed alteration not adequately address those scenarios? Said providers must offer those services where an undue burden is placed on the patient by their refusal."

[Wallenburg]

"In an ideal world, a 'substantial burden' test would work rather well. If you will recall the principle of Reasonable Nation Theory, however, those uncivilized states which at every turn resist the furtherance of reproductive rights will exploit nebulous language for their own ends. 'Access to Abortion' does not use such language, and thus frees itself from the malicious designs of states which would seek to derail the mission of WA Choice Plus. With this language, member states can rather easily claim no substantial burden exists and tell a patient seeking an abortion to travel fifty or sixty or a hundred miles to receive care.

"As far as your concerns regarding the physician, I don't really think your analogy holds up. A tax attorney is not equipped and trained to provide the service a client in a criminal case needs, even if they possess some understanding of criminal law. A pharmacist, however, is more than qualified to provide abortifacients, and cannot argue they are unequipped to do so unless their inventory is depleted. The difference here is between the lawyer's professional opinion that they cannot provide satisfactory representation to the client and the pharmacist's simple disgust for how a patient wants to handle their pregnancy. The two are not comparable. I also find the argument that another physician can take over unconvincing. The only circumstances in which an objection to providing abortion care would matter to anyone is where it leaves the patient with no physician to address their medical needs.

"If you remain concerned that physicians' agency is unduly limited by the requirement to treat their patients, perhaps you can recommend to medical schools that they educate staunchly anti-abortion students on how not to apply for jobs where they are expected to provide abortion care."

[Separatist Peoples]

"In an ideal world, a 'substantial burden' test would work rather well. If you will recall the principle of Reasonable Nation Theory, however, those uncivilized states which at every turn resist the furtherance of reproductive rights will exploit nebulous language for their own ends. 'Access to Abortion' does not use such language, and thus frees itself from the malicious designs of states which would seek to derail the mission of WA Choice Plus. With this language, member states can rather easily claim no substantial burden exists and tell a patient seeking an abortion to travel fifty or sixty or a hundred miles to receive care.

"If they did, the member state would owe travel costs per Access to Abortion. This is not a substantial issue."

"As far as your concerns regarding the physician, I don't really think your analogy holds up. A tax attorney is not equipped and trained to provide the service a client in a criminal case needs, even if they possess some understanding of criminal law.

OOC: This is untrue. The minimum standards to practice law ensure that a tax attorney has the minimal qualifications to practice criminal law and does not commit malpractice by practicing criminal law. Despite that, the tax attorney has every right to refuse a criminal case.

A pharmacist, however, is more than qualified to provide abortifacients, and cannot argue they are unequipped to do so unless their inventory is depleted. The difference here is between the lawyer's professional opinion that they cannot provide satisfactory representation to the client and the pharmacist's simple disgust for how a patient wants to handle their pregnancy.

"But an attorney generally has the ability to refuse representation or withdraw from active representation when representation presents a personal moral or ethical objection, whether or not it involves mere disgust at the client's position. Why do physicians not merit the same right?"

The two are not comparable. I also find the argument that another physician can take over unconvincing. The only circumstances in which an objection to providing abortion care would matter to anyone is where it leaves the patient with no physician to address their medical needs.

"If you remain concerned that physicians' agency is unduly limited by the requirement to treat their patients, perhaps you can recommend to medical schools that they educate staunchly anti-abortion students on how not to apply for jobs where they are expected to provide abortion care."

"This is not a realistic solution."

[Bananaistan]

"The honoured comrade representing the Wallenburgers has adequately covered the objections to this proposal raised at the Politburo meeting last night.

"It would be an extremely retrograde step for this assembly to now grant an opportunity to delinquent member states to stymie reproductive rights after everything we have achieved."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I am inclined to put this under Human Rights: Mild rather than Bioethics due to the description of the area of effect following, which implies a reduction in civil rights rather than the opposite.

Bioethics: Just because escaped superbugs might cause one or two silly little epidemics somewhere unimportant, people are being scared into putting the brakes on Science! You say it's setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research. I say it's the free individual's civil rights freedoms being chipped away by the nanny state!

---

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. Surely if this proposal were to stymie access to abortion and other reproductive services, the manner in which it does so could be articulable. That said, we are open to discussion as to improvements on the language in the proposal. Eg a test to determine what a substantial burden is. We welcome suggestions.

[Wardogs Of Past]

Frankly, if any medical professional objects to giving people the help they require, they have no place being involved with providing medical care to anyone, and any doctor displaying such unprofessionalism within our borders will rightfully be asked to stop that kind of unacceptable behaviour or face a nullification of their qualifications.

Our doctors exist to serve the public, ALL of the public, not to spread their own moral views, they cannot be allowed to pick and choose whether or not they personally want to help their fellow people. If a procedure helps a person, and assuming the patient gives their consent, it is each and every doctor's individual responsibility to do everything they can to ensure the person goes through that procedure, regardless of what the individual doctor personally thinks of the procedure.

We find it frightening that any medical professional working within our community would even think of allowing their own religious beliefs to affect their patients. We will do everything in our power to ensure that these zealots are driven out of such important positions within society, regardless of the cost, and we urge other states to root out these people from their respective medical institutions as well.

[Great Algerstonia]

"Full support of this bill; Algerstonia believes that our businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur unequivocally supports this proposal. Having ensured that all persons in member nations have meaningful access to reproductive health services, it is important to ensure that a person who has a moral objection to performing such procedure is not compelled to do so. The two are by no means mutually exclusive."

[Comfed]

"Absolutely not. Doctors have no right to decline their services based on the patient."

[Barfleur]

"Absolutely not. Doctors have no right to decline their services based on the patient."

"We agree in principle: doctors have no right to decline their services based on the patient. But a doctor who has a moral objection to abortion is not objecting to the patient, but rather the procedure. This is different from, say, a doctor refusing service to a Bigtopian immigrant or to a gay man because of their respective race or sexual orientation, which I agree is despicable."

[Comfed]

"Absolutely not. Doctors have no right to decline their services based on the patient."

"We agree in principle: doctors have no right to decline their services based on the patient. But a doctor who has a moral objection to abortion is not objecting to the patient, but rather the procedure. This is different from, say, a doctor refusing service to a Bigtopian immigrant or to a gay man because of their respective race or sexual orientation, which I agree is despicable."

“If a doctor has a moral objection to a procedure, they should at least go into a field of medicine where they don’t have to do that procedure. A dermatologist with an objection to skin grafting shouldn’t be a dermatologist.”

[Barfleur]

"We agree in principle: doctors have no right to decline their services based on the patient. But a doctor who has a moral objection to abortion is not objecting to the patient, but rather the procedure. This is different from, say, a doctor refusing service to a Bigtopian immigrant or to a gay man because of their respective race or sexual orientation, which I agree is despicable."

“If a doctor has a moral objection to a procedure, they should at least go into a field of medicine where they don’t have to do that procedure. A dermatologist with an objection to skin grafting shouldn’t be a dermatologist.”

"Exactly, they can do any medical job that does not involve abortion if they object to abortion. But that would still leave them liable to the government passing a law requiring all doctors to perform abortions on demand, or to their employer changing their responsibilities so as to include abortion. And thanks to GA#499 and this proposal's section 2, a doctor can exercise their right to make a moral statement without hindering the right of a pregnant individual to a safe and accessible abortion."

[Sincluda]

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "I believe it would be wise to allow for the conscientious objection to any procedure. I see no reason for abortion to be the only procedure this applies to."

[Daarwyrth]

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "I believe it would be wise to allow for the conscientious objection to any procedure. I see no reason for abortion to be the only procedure this applies to."

Maria vyn Nysen rolled her eyes. "Oh yes, let's give doctors the right to refuse all sorts of treatment to others, because that is such a good idea. It's not like that would open the door for discrimination and poor medical conduct."

The Daarwyrthian representative crossed her arms. "Is that what you want, Ambassador? To give doctors the ability to refuse treatment to someone because they're homosexual? A woman? Because they have a different skin colour? Is that the kind of medical care you wish to see across the member states of the World Assembly?"

[Sincluda]

Sincludan Prime Ambassador Harrison Raiken: "I believe it would be wise to allow for the conscientious objection to any procedure. I see no reason for abortion to be the only procedure this applies to."

Maria vyn Nysen rolled her eyes. "Oh yes, let's give doctors the right to refuse all sorts of treatment to others, because that is such a good idea. It's not like that would open the door for discrimination and poor medical conduct."

Raiken: "As if the same couldn't apply to the abortion procedure. For this matter, I could suggest something like an international agency of doctors who pledge to never discriminate or refuse aid to someone, or simply vote against this proposal."

[Daarwyrth]

Maria vyn Nysen rolled her eyes. "Oh yes, let's give doctors the right to refuse all sorts of treatment to others, because that is such a good idea. It's not like that would open the door for discrimination and poor medical conduct."

Raiken: "As if the same couldn't apply to the abortion procedure. For this matter, I could suggest something like an international agency of doctors who pledge to never discriminate or refuse aid to someone, or simply vote against this proposal."

Vyn Nysen: "I can assure you that our delegation will vote against this bill once it reaches the floor. If it reaches the floor. It is our delegation's belief, as well as that of our Queen, that no one should be denied medical care because a doctor has some religious, moral or conscientious objection to it."

[Sincluda]

Raiken: "As if the same couldn't apply to the abortion procedure. For this matter, I could suggest something like an international agency of doctors who pledge to never discriminate or refuse aid to someone, or simply vote against this proposal."

Vyn Nysen: "I can assure you that our delegation will vote against this bill once it reaches the floor. If it reaches the floor. It is our delegation's belief, as well as that of our Queen, that no one should be denied medical care because a doctor has some religious, moral or conscientious objection to it."

Raiken: "Truthfully, I agree. However, my stance is not so firm, and if this bill were to pass, I would at least like some equality from it."

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "I can assure you that our delegation will vote against this bill once it reaches the floor. If it reaches the floor. It is our delegation's belief, as well as that of our Queen, that no one should be denied medical care because a doctor has some religious, moral or conscientious objection to it."

Raiken: "Truthfully, I agree. However, my stance is not so firm, and if this bill were to pass, I would at least like some equality from it."

"In other words, you want a situation where every minority can be discriminated against equally? That is a twisted perspective on equality, Ambassador."

[Sincluda]

Raiken: "Truthfully, I agree. However, my stance is not so firm, and if this bill were to pass, I would at least like some equality from it."

"In other words, you want a situation where every minority can be discriminated against equally? That is a twisted perspective on equality, Ambassador."

"I meant it more in the way that if doctors can refuse one medical treatment, they should be allowed to be refuse any. Again, that it only if this were to pass, and in the end I am opposed."

[Daarwyrth]

"In other words, you want a situation where every minority can be discriminated against equally? That is a twisted perspective on equality, Ambassador."

"I meant it more in the way that if doctors can refuse one medical treatment, they should be allowed to be refuse any. Again, that it only if this were to pass, and in the end I am opposed."

"Good, Ambassador, then I suggest you remain opposed to it in totality. Even if this proposal passes, it should not be a doorway to further legislation that would promote an expansion of this idea. The fact that it would exist for abortion alone already gravely concerns me."

[Tinhampton]

A generic staffer who self-identifies as the "Voice of the Tinhamptonian Delegation:" Dame Maria is being appropriately sarcastic here... possibly golden-meanly or whatever they call it these days. The Tinhamptonians have no intention of supporting this in queue or at vote.